Competent authority must decide the pending representation through a reasoned and speaking order.

The applicant, a Loco Pilot (Mail/Express) with South Eastern Railway, passed the Bhadrak Home Signal at Danger while operating Train No. 12882 Down, attributing the incident to dense fog.

During the departmental enquiry, he admitted that he had mistakenly perceived the red signal as yellow.

He was removed from service with effect from 22.06.2016, without compassionate allowance.

On appeal, the punishment was modified: he was reinstated as Loco Pilot (Shunter), Grade-I, at the minimum pay, with bottom seniority for five years; thereafter, he was to be restored to his earlier post with original pay and seniority, subject to a satisfactory track record.

The intervening period was to be treated as “Dies Non”.

In revision, the period of reduced status was altered from five years to three years, while the remaining conditions were maintained.

After completion of three years, the applicant submitted a representation dated 02.03.2021 to the Divisional Railway Manager seeking restoration of his original pay and seniority.

As the representation was not decided, he approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation dated 02.03.2021 concerning restoration of his original pay and seniority.

Whether the Tribunal should examine the merits of the applicant’s claim for pay parity and challenge to the RTI response dated 06.08.2021 at this stage.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning applications by aggrieved government servants in service matters.

It applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must consider a pending representation and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

Since the applicant sought only consideration of his pending representation, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive merits of his entitlement to restoration of pay or seniority, and kept all issues open.

No judicial precedent was cited or applied.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s representation dated 02.03.2021 had allegedly remained undecided after completion of the revised three-year period of punishment.

Since the applicant’s counsel confined the relief sought to a direction for consideration of that representation, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to issue a limited procedural direction rather than determine the applicant’s entitlement to pay parity, restoration of seniority, or the validity of the RTI report.

Accordingly, the competent authority was required to consider the representation along with the Tribunal’s order and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The competent respondent authority was directed to consider the applicant’s representation dated 02.03.2021, treating the Original Application as part of the representation, and to communicate a reasoned and speaking decision to the applicant within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

All points were expressly left open, and no order as to costs was made.