Competent authorities must decide pending service representations through reasoned, speaking orders within the prescribed timeframe.

The applicant, a former employee of the North Eastern Railway, was removed from service on 13 January 2003 for unauthorised absence.

In appeal, the penalty was modified on 24 December 2003 to reduction of pay to a lower stage of ₹5,500 for two years without cumulative effect, pursuant to which he rejoined service on 29 December 2003.

The respondents treated the period from 13 January 2003 to 24 December 2003 as “dies-non” and non-duty.

The applicant contended that this period ought to be treated as qualifying service for pensionary purposes and for grant of the third MACP on completion of 30 years of service.

He submitted a representation dated 1 January 2026 seeking reconsideration of the treatment of the period, which remained undecided.

The Original Application sought, inter alia, correction of the PPO, recognition of the period as qualifying service, grant of the third MACP, and a direction to decide the pending representation.

Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant’s pending representation concerning the treatment of the period from 13 January 2003 to 24 December 2003 as “dies-non”.

Whether the applicant was entitled, on merits, to have the disputed period treated as qualifying service and consequently to receive the third MACP and other consequential benefits.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a pending service grievance or representation should be considered by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed time.

Since the respondents had no objection to such a direction, the Tribunal exercised restraint and did not adjudicate the substantive entitlement concerning “dies-non,” qualifying service, pensionary benefits, or MACP.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s substantive challenge involved the treatment of the period between his removal and reinstatement, its effect on qualifying service, and his claim to the third MACP.

However, the immediate grievance was that his representation dated 1 January 2026 had not been decided.

As the respondents consented to an order requiring consideration of that representation, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to dispose of the matter at the threshold without expressing any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claims.

It therefore directed the competent authority to examine the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The competent authority was directed to decide the applicant’s pending representation dated 1 January 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs.