Competent authority must decide the pending representation through a reasoned, speaking order within three months.

The applicants, residents of Purba Medinipur, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking appointment of Applicant No. 2 under the Railway’s land-loser/compassionate appointment scheme, allegedly in terms of R.B.E. 99/2010 and judgments concerning similarly situated screened candidates of the Deshpran–Nandigram Special Railway Project.

They asserted that they were beneficiaries of the scheme framed by the Railway authorities for compassionate appointment in lieu of land acquired for the project.

Their representation dated 17 December 2025 remained pending before the respondents.

The applicants also filed M.A. No. 350/660/2026 seeking permission to jointly pursue the original application; the Tribunal allowed the application under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, finding that the applicants shared a common grievance and cause of action.

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

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representation dated 17 December 2025 concerning appointment under the land-loser/compassionate appointment scheme.

2. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the applicants’ entitlement to appointment and grant the substantive reliefs claimed under R.B.E. 99/2010 and the cited judgments at the admission stage.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and permitted the applicants to jointly pursue the O.A. under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, where applicants have a common grievance and cause of action.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a competent authority must consider a pending representation and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

It did not determine the applicants’ substantive entitlement under R.B.E. 99/2010, the land-loser/compassionate appointment scheme, or the judgments relied upon; limitation and all other merits-based objections were expressly kept open.

Since the applicants’ representation dated 17 December 2025 was stated to be pending and the respondents raised no objection to its consideration, the Tribunal found it appropriate to grant limited procedural relief rather than examine the merits of the appointment claim.

The Tribunal therefore directed the competent respondent authority to treat the O.A. as part of the pending representation, consider the applicants’ claim, and issue a reasoned and speaking order.

This approach preserved the respondents’ authority to examine the claim under the applicable scheme, while ensuring that the applicants received a formal decision within a defined period.

The Tribunal expressly declined to adjudicate the merits or limitation issues.

No finding was recorded on the applicants’ entitlement to appointment; limitation and all other merits-based issues were left open.

M.A. No. 350/660/2026 was disposed of by permitting joint pursuit of the O.A., and there was no order as to costs.