Directed Consideration of Representation Required Where Missing Employment Credentials for Accidental Death Benefits are Subsequently Provided

The applicant, Jogai Kora, sought the disbursement of ₹5,00,000/- under the Nehru Accidental Death Benefit Scheme following the death of his mother, Pori Kora, an employee (Kamin) at IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur, who died in the course of employment on January 3, 2006

In response to a legal notice, the Deputy Manager (Law), SAIL-ISP, issued a letter dated January 30, 2025, requesting the applicant to provide the deceased's Personnel Number (P. No.) to facilitate the claim

The applicant subsequently provided P. No. 23755 and T. No. 0464 via a letter dated March 4, 2025

However, the respondents failed to communicate a final decision or release payment, leading to the current application

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to consider the applicant's claim for accidental death benefits after the submission of the requested employment identification documents

2. Whether the application is maintainable given the respondents' objections regarding the statute of limitations (stale claim) and the prior approach to the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Tribunal to adjudicate grievances regarding service matters of employees of the Union or specified authorities

The procedural principle of administrative fairness, which requires competent authorities to dispose of representations through reasoned and speaking orders, especially when the authority itself initiated the request for further documentation to "ascertain the claim"

The Tribunal noted that while the respondents argued the claim was stale and that the applicant had previously approached the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation in 2012, the respondents' own actions in early 2025 invited the applicant to submit specific documents to process the claim

The Deputy Manager (Law) specifically requested the P. No. of the deceased to facilitate the authorities

Since the applicant complied with this request on March 4, 2025, but received no response, the Tribunal found it appropriate to direct the authorities to fulfill their administrative duty

The Tribunal refrained from ruling on the merits of the case or the validity of the stale claim argument, leaving those for the respondent authority to determine in their final order

It directed the competent respondent authority to treat the O.A. as a supplementary representation and consider the applicant's case in light of the provided Personnel Number. The authority must communicate its decision via a "reasoned and speaking order" with necessary follow-up actions within three months of receipt of the order