CAT Directs Danapur DRM to Decide 18 Railway Staffers’ Pending Representations Within 3 Months of Certified Order Being Produced

In brief

The question

Whether Respondent No. 4 or the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations by a reasoned and speaking order.

The court held

The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. without deciding limitation or the merits.

It also directed

The Tribunal directed Respondent No. 4 or the competent authority to consider and decide the representations at Annexure A/7 by a reasoned and speaking order within three months from production of a certified copy of the order.

The applicants were also directed to submit copies of their earlier representations and the Patna High Court judgment on which they relied.

The joint-proceeding M.A. was allowed, all M.As. were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.

01Facts

Eighteen railway employees, including one retired employee, approached the Tribunal concerning a common service-related grievance.

p. 8

They stated that they had submitted representations to Respondent No. 4 on various dates between July and August 2026, which remained pending.

p. 8

They relied on the Patna High Court’s judgment dated 13 February 2025 in CWJC No. 7375 of 2024 and sought a direction for the representations to be decided by a reasoned order.

p. 8

The applicants’ request to pursue the matter jointly was allowed; the respondents raised no objection to the requested direction.

pp. 8–9

02Issues

i.Whether Respondent No. 4 or the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations by a reasoned and speaking order.

pp. 8–9

ii.Whether the Tribunal should determine the limitation and merits of the applicants’ underlying grievance at this stage.

p. 9

03Law Applied

The Tribunal did not apply or determine any specific statutory provision, substantive service-law rule, or precedent.

pp. 8–9

It considered the limited prayer for a decision on the pending representations in accordance with law and rules, and directed the competent authority to decide them by a reasoned and speaking order.

pp. 8–9

The Patna High Court judgment was cited by the applicants as a basis for their grievance, but the Tribunal did not examine or apply it on the merits.

pp. 8–9

04Reasoning

The applicants confined their requested relief to a decision on representations that they said were pending, rather than seeking a determination of the underlying service dispute.

pp. 8–9

The respondents raised no objection.

pp. 8–9

Treating the prayer as an innocuous request for administrative consideration, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to decide the representations within a fixed period, while expressly declining to enter into either limitation or the merits.

pp. 8–9