Competent authority must decide pending land-loser appointment representations by a reasoned order within three months.

The applicants, Manas Kumar Santra and Proloy Kumar Santra, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking appointment for Applicant No. 2 under the Railway’s land-loser/compassionate appointment scheme relating to the Deshpran–Nandigram Special Railway Project.

They relied upon Railway Board Establishment Circular No. 99/2010 and certain earlier decisions concerning similarly placed screened candidates.

The applicants stated that their representation dated 16.12.2025 remained pending before the Railway authorities.

They also filed M.A. No. 350/655/2026 seeking permission to jointly pursue the original application; the Tribunal found that they shared a common grievance and cause of action and allowed the application under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

During hearing, the applicants agreed that the matter could be disposed of by directing consideration of the pending representation, and the respondents raised no objection.

Whether the applicants could jointly pursue the original application on the ground that they shared a common grievance and cause of action.

Whether the competent Railway authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representation dated 16.12.2025 by a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the Tribunal should directly grant appointment and ancillary benefits under the land-loser/compassionate appointment scheme at the admission stage.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 permits an aggrieved person to approach the Tribunal for redressal of a service-related grievance.

Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 permits persons having a common grievance and common cause of action to jointly pursue an application, subject to the Tribunal’s satisfaction.

Where a representation remains pending, the Tribunal may direct the competent authority to consider it and communicate a reasoned and speaking decision within a specified period, without adjudicating the underlying merits.

The claims based on Railway Board Establishment Circular No. 99/2010 and earlier judicial decisions were not examined on merits; limitation and all other substantive objections were expressly kept open.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicants’ grievance arose from the same land-acquisition project and the same alleged denial of appointment benefits, thereby satisfying the common-grievance and common-cause requirement under Rule 4(5)(a).

Since the representation dated 16.12.2025 was stated to be pending and the respondents did not oppose a direction for its consideration, the Tribunal adopted a limited procedural remedy rather than determining entitlement to appointment.

Accordingly, it directed the competent authority to treat the original application as part of the representation, consider the matter, and issue a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from examining the merits, including limitation and other legal objections.

The O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the competent Railway authority to consider the representation dated 16.12.2025, treating the O.A. as part of it, and communicate a reasoned and speaking order within three months from receipt of the Tribunal’s order.

No direct appointment or ancillary monetary benefits were granted, and the merits, limitation, and all other objections were left open.

There was no order as to costs.