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

The applicants were recruited through the Railway Recruitment Board to the post of Technician-III pursuant to the final result dated 22 March 2005 and panel dated 23 March 2005.

They were provisionally appointed and required to undergo six months’ training; however, due to an acute shortage of technicians, the training period was reduced to six weeks, after which they were permitted to join their respective posts without undergoing the post-training examination.

A seniority list issued on 1 April 2008 placed the applicants below employees appointed through the 50% departmental quota.

The applicants challenged this placement through a representation dated 19 January 2011 and subsequently sought information under the Right to Information Act.

The respondents informed them on 25 March 2013 that the seniority list had been prepared in accordance with Railway Board instructions.

The applicants later submitted another representation dated 13 November 2025, invoking paragraph 303(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), Volume I, which remained undecided.

They therefore approached the Tribunal seeking correction of their seniority or, alternatively, a direction for decision on their pending representation.

Whether the applicants were entitled to fixation of their seniority en bloc above employees appointed as Mechanist-III after their joining, under paragraph 303(a) of the IREM, Volume I?

Whether the competent authority should be directed to decide the applicants’ pending representation dated 13 November 2025 by passing a reasoned and speaking order?

The Tribunal applied paragraph 303(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume I, concerning fixation of seniority, along with the applicable rules governing the relative seniority of promotees and direct recruits.

The Tribunal also applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must consider a pending service grievance and issue a reasoned and speaking order.

Since the respondents did not oppose consideration of the representation, the Tribunal confined the relief to a direction for administrative decision-making and did not adjudicate the applicants’ substantive seniority claim.

The applicants asserted that their seniority had been incorrectly fixed below departmental-quota employees and relied on paragraph 303(a) of the IREM and the rules governing seniority between promotees and direct recruits.

However, the Tribunal noted that the immediate relief sought could be granted without examining the merits of the seniority dispute.

As the representation dated 13 November 2025 was pending and the respondents had no objection to its consideration, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to examine the representation, the applicability of paragraph 303(a), and the relevant seniority rules, and to decide the matter through a reasoned and speaking order.

It disposed of Original Application No. 1030 of 2026 by directing Respondent No. 2 or the competent authority to decide the applicants’ representation dated 13 November 2025 after considering paragraph 303(a) of the IREM and the applicable rules concerning the seniority of promotees and direct recruits.

The decision was to be taken by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The application was disposed of with no order as to costs.