Direction to decide pending representation for Fixed Medical Allowance through a reasoned and speaking order.

The applicant, the widow of a deceased railway employee, filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking directions for the respondents to release Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) and its arrears

The respondents challenged the maintainability of the application, contending that under Railway Rules, FMA is only permissible if a Railway Hospital is unavailable within 2 km of the applicant's residence; they asserted that a Railway Hospital is available at the applicant's place of residence in Ranaghat

The applicant had previously submitted a representation dated 09.09.2025 regarding this claim, which remained pending with the authorities

During the proceedings, the applicant’s counsel limited the prayer to a direction for the disposal of said representation

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) under the extant Railway Rules

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct the Competent Respondent Authority to decide upon the applicant's pending representation dated 09.09.2025 in a time-bound manner

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The substantive issue is governed by Railway Rules regarding the grant of Fixed Medical Allowance, which establish a proximity-based eligibility criterion, specifically disqualifying claimants residing within 02 kms of a Railway Hospital

The court further applied the principles of administrative law regarding the requirement for authorities to pass "reasoned and speaking orders" when disposing of representations

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive merits of the applicant’s eligibility for FMA, explicitly stating that all points were kept open for consideration by the authorities

Instead, the Tribunal focused on the procedural delay in responding to the applicant's representation. It determined that since the representation dated 09.09.2025 was already pending, the most appropriate course of action was to compel the administrative authority to perform its duty

By directing the issuance of a "reasoned and speaking order," the Tribunal ensured that the respondents would have to formally evaluate the applicant's residency status and the 2 km proximity rule against the specific facts of her case

It directed the Competent Respondent Authority to consider the applicant’s representation dated 09.09.2025 and pass a reasoned and speaking order as per extant rules and guidelines within three months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order

The court clarified that it had not entered into the merits of the matter