Competent authority must decide the pending family-pension representation within three months under extant rules.

The applicant, Ranjana Bibi, claimed to be the second wife of late Samsul, a retired Eastern Railway employee who died on 29 June 2014.

The deceased employee had recorded the names of both his wives, Smt. Kamala Bibi and the applicant, for family-pension purposes.

Kamala Bibi died on 21 November 2020, after which the applicant sought grant of family pension.

The deceased employee’s legal heirs, Smt. Alkama Bibi and Shri Jahangir Sk., furnished affidavits/no-objection certificates consenting to payment of family pension to the applicant.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 15 December 2025 seeking family pension and a further representation dated 13 July 2026 concerning correction of the relevant pension records.

Family pension had not been granted, allegedly because of a discrepancy in the applicant’s date of birth.

Before the Tribunal, the applicant limited her request to a direction for consideration of her pending representation.

Whether the competent Railway authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation dated 15 December 2025 seeking grant of family pension.

Whether the discrepancy regarding the applicant’s date of birth required resolution, including submission of an affidavit or supporting documents, before consideration of her claim for family pension.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which enables an aggrieved person to approach the Tribunal regarding a service-related grievance.

It directed the competent authority to decide the representation in accordance with the extant pension and service rules, without itself determining the applicant’s entitlement on merits.

The Tribunal also recognised that the competent authority could require an affidavit and relevant documentary proof concerning the applicant’s date of birth before deciding the pension claim.

The applicant established that her claim for family pension had been formally placed before the Railway authorities and that the other legal heirs had furnished no-objection affidavits.

However, the respondents identified a discrepancy in her date of birth, which could affect verification of her claim and the pension records.

Since the applicant sought only consideration of her pending representation, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the validity of the marriage, the date-of-birth discrepancy, or the substantive entitlement to family pension.

Instead, applying the principle that the competent administrative authority must decide a pending representation in accordance with the applicable rules, it directed the DRM or another competent authority to undertake the decision-making process within a fixed period.

The DRM, Eastern Railway, Malda Division, or another competent authority was directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 15 December 2025 seeking family pension within three months from receipt of the Tribunal’s order, in accordance with the extant rules.

If necessary, the applicant could be required to file an affidavit and relevant documents concerning her date of birth.

The Tribunal expressly kept all merits open and passed no order as to costs.