Competent authority must decide applicants’ MACP representations by a reasoned, speaking order within three months.

The twelve applicants, employees of the Northern Railway, sought financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme by treating the period of training preceding their appointment as qualifying service.

They also claimed consequential benefits, arrears, and interest.

During the hearing, however, the applicants confined their request to a direction requiring the competent authority to decide their pending representations in light of the judgments in East Coast Railways Engineers Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 485 of 2021, decided by the Cuttack Bench on 15 November 2023; the Orissa High Court’s judgment in W.P.(C) No. 17872 of 2024 dated 27 March 2025; and the Supreme Court’s order in SLP (C) No. 24399 of 2025 dated 29 August 2025.

The respondents did not oppose such consideration in principle but requested three months’ time to decide the representations.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations concerning the counting of training period for MACP benefits in light of the cited judicial decisions.

Whether the Tribunal should itself determine the applicants’ entitlement to MACP benefits, arrears, interest, and consequential reliefs, or leave those questions to the competent authority in the first instance.

The claim arose under the MACP Scheme concerning financial upgradation and the computation of qualifying service, including the period of training.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a competent administrative authority must consider an employee’s pending representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The Tribunal directed consideration of the representations in light of the decisions of the Cuttack Bench in East Coast Railways Engineers Association, the Orissa High Court, and the Supreme Court, while leaving the determination of factual similarity and legal applicability to the competent authority.

Since the applicants expressly limited their request to adjudication of their representations, the Tribunal did not undertake an independent examination of whether the training period constituted qualifying service under the MACP Scheme.

Instead, it accepted that the competent authority should first examine the representations by applying the cited judgments and relevant service-law principles.

The authority was required to assess the similarity of facts and the applicability of those decisions, provide reasons, and issue a speaking order.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from commenting on the merits, thereby preserving the authority’s primary jurisdiction to determine entitlement.

The decision was to be reasoned and speaking, made in accordance with law and in light of the three cited judgments, and communicated to the applicants forthwith.

The Tribunal clarified that it had made no observation on the merits and that the competent authority would determine the similarity of facts and applicability of the judgments.

No order as to costs was made.