Competent authority directed to decide pending representation regarding antedated promotion and arrears in a time-bound manner.

The applicants are employees of the Eastern Railway (Howrah Division) working in categories such as Trackman (TM) 1, 2, and 11.

They approached the Tribunal seeking to antedate their promotions to the post of Senior Trackman to the year 2007 and claimed consequential arrears.

They further requested parity with a prior Tribunal order dated 06.07.2023 passed in OA 870 of 2023 (Ranjit Sikdar and Ors. v. Union of India).

Procedurally, they filed M.A. 350/384/2026 to pursue the remedy jointly.

During the hearing, one applicant (Sri Mrinal Kanti Porel) requested to be deleted from the proceedings.

The applicants’ primary grievance is that their representation dated 15.02.2026 addressed to the authorities remains pending.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to join together in a single petition under the CAT (Procedure) Rules.

2. Whether the respondent authorities (Eastern Railway) can be directed to decide upon the applicants' pending representation regarding the antedating of their promotions in a time-bound manner.

Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which permits multiple applicants to file a single application if they share a common cause of action and interest.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs applications regarding grievances in service matters.

Discretionary power to dispose of the matter at the admission stage without entering into the merits, focusing on the principle of administrative responsiveness to pending representations.

The Tribunal first addressed the procedural requirement for joint filing and, finding a commonality of interest, allowed the miscellaneous application for joint pursuit of remedy.

Regarding the substantive relief, the Tribunal observed that the applicants had already submitted a representation on 15.02.2026 to the authorities, which had not yet been finalized.

Given that the applicants’ counsel limited the prayer to a request for a time-bound consideration of said representation, and the respondents raised no objection to such a direction, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to adjudicate on the merits of the promotion claims at this stage.

Instead, the Tribunal focused on ensuring the competent authority performs its administrative duty to examine the claims in accordance with existing laws and the precedent cited by the applicants (Ranjit Sikdar case).

Without ruling on the merits of the promotion antedating, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Howrah (Respondent No. 2), to consider and decide upon the applicants' representation dated 15.02.2026.

The authority must treat the O.A. as part of the representation and communicate a reasoned decision within 08 weeks from the receipt of the order. No costs were awarded.