Authority must decide pending land loser category appointment representations in light of binding judicial precedents.

The applicants’ land was acquired by the South Eastern Railway for the "Deshpran to Nandigram Special Railway Project"

A land-loser certificate was subsequently issued in favor of Applicant No. 2

Pursuant to Railway Board Circular RBE No. 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010, the applicants submitted a prescribed application seeking employment under the land-loser category for Applicant No. 1 (the daughter of Applicant No. 2)

Despite submitting a formal representation dated 18.09.2025 to the competent authority, the respondents failed to communicate a decision

The applicants approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for appointment or, alternatively, the disposal of their pending representation

1. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to consider and decide upon the pending representation for appointment under the land-loser category in light of existing Railway Board circulars and judicial precedents

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the right to redressal of grievances

Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, for joint prosecution

Railway Board Circular RBE 99 of 2010, which governs appointments for land losers

The legal principles established by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in Union of India & Ors. v. Jahangir Chowdhury & Ors. (WPCT 28 of 2021) and Union of India & Ors. v. Chandi Das Khan & Ors. (WPCT 75 of 2020), alongside the Tribunal’s own order in OA/350/319/2021, regarding the administrative duty to pass reasoned orders on such claims

The Tribunal noted that the applicants had a pending representation dated 18.09.2025 which had not been adjudicated by the Railway authorities

During the proceedings, the applicants limited their prayer to a request for a time-bound consideration of said representation in accordance with prevailing law and specific precedents from the Calcutta High Court

The respondents expressed no objection to this limited prayer

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the ends of justice would be met by directing the competent authority to treat the Original Application as part of the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order

The Tribunal explicitly declined to examine the merits of the case, ensuring that all legal and factual points remained open for administrative determination

The competent authority is directed to consider the applicants' representation dated 18.09.2025 in light of the judgments in Jahangir Chowdhury and Chandi Das Khan

The respondents must communicate their decision via a reasoned and speaking order within four months from the date of receipt of the Tribunal's order

The Tribunal... disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents

No costs were awarded