Competent authority must decide designation-correction representations through a reasoned speaking order within four months.

The applicant, an Assistant Depot Store Keeper working under the Deputy Chief Material Manager, General Stores Depot, Kanpur, alleged that his designation was incorrectly reflected as “Assistant Depot (Khalasi)” instead of “Assistant Depot (Store)” in the HRMS/IPAS portal.

He approached the concerned authorities seeking correction of the designation and submitted a representation dated 23 February 2026; the relief clause also referred to a representation dated 20 February 2026.

The respondents stated that letters dated 25 February 2026 and 9 June 2026 had been sent to the concerned authorities and that HRMS service request No. REQ00146371 had been raised, but the requisite designation option had not yet been enabled.

The applicant thereafter approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking time-bound disposal of his representation and an opportunity of hearing.

Whether the respondents should be directed to examine and decide the applicant’s grievance concerning correction of his designation in the HRMS/IPAS portal through a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the applicant was entitled to a direction for time-bound consideration of his representation and an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning an employee’s application for adjudication of a service-related grievance.

It applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must consider a duly raised grievance in accordance with law and applicable departmental instructions and communicate its decision by a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal also recognised that the decision on the substantive correction of the designation remained within the jurisdiction of the competent railway authority and that the Tribunal should not prejudge the merits of that grievance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s grievance had been acknowledged by the railway authorities and that preliminary steps had been taken through the letters dated 25 February 2026 and 9 June 2026 and the HRMS service request.

However, the designation option “Assistant Depot (Store)” had not yet been made available, and the grievance had therefore not been finally resolved.

Since the issue involved examination by the competent authority under the applicable Railway Board instructions, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to direct administrative consideration rather than decide the correctness of the designation itself.

The direction for a reasoned and speaking order ensured that the applicant’s representation would receive a lawful and accountable determination.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits.

Respondent No. 3/competent authority was directed to examine the applicant’s grievance regarding correction of his designation in the HRMS/IPAS portal and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law and applicable Railway Board instructions, preferably within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal did not grant the substantive correction itself and left the merits to the competent authority.

There was no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.