### DISPOSAL OF SERVICE ClAIMS VIA FRESH REPRESENTATION WITHOUT ADJUDICATING ON SURVIVABILITY OF DECEASED EMPLOYEE'S PROMOTIONAL RIGHTS

The applicants are the legal heirs (widow and sons) of late Shri Mukund Lal Sonkar, a former railway employee who was removed from service in 2003.

Following a remand from the Allahabad High Court, the Tribunal quashed the removal order on 13.10.2017 and directed consequential benefits.

While the respondents notionally reinstated the deceased from the date of removal until his retirement (31.10.2013) and released certain dues, the applicants claim that several benefits—including promotional grades (ACM/CS), various allowances (traveling, night, uniform), and interest on delayed payments—remain unpaid.

The applicants challenge deductions made for cottage rent.

The employee died on 24.01.2020 during the pendency of execution proceedings.

The respondents contend the claims are barred by limitation, constructive res judicata, and Rule 10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, regarding the clubbing of multiple reliefs.

1. Whether the legal heirs of a deceased employee can maintain a claim for promotional and service benefits that were not specifically claimed by the employee during his lifetime.

2. Whether the Original Application is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata or Rule 10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules due to the nature of the reliefs sought.

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to a fresh consideration of their grievances regarding unpaid consequential benefits and alleged illegal deductions.

The court considered the principles of Constructive Res Judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, which prevent parties from litigating issues that ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings.

Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which prohibits the clubbing of plural and independent reliefs in a single application.

Principle of Administrative Redressal, where a competent authority is mandated to pass a "reasoned and speaking order" when considering representations regarding service and retiral dues.

The Tribunal refrained from a merit-based adjudication of the individual claims, noting the significant procedural objections raised by the respondents, such as the survivability of promotional claims and the bar of limitation.

The Tribunal observed that several monetary grievances regarding pensionary fixation and deductions remained unresolved and had been the subject of prior representations by the applicants.

Rather than dismissing the application on technical grounds of "multiplicity of reliefs," the Tribunal determined that the interest of justice required the respondents to evaluate the specific financial grievances through a formal administrative process.

This approach allows the executive to first address the factual disputes regarding "consequential benefits" directed in the 2017 judgment before the court engages in further judicial review.

The Tribunal granted the applicants liberty to submit a "fresh comprehensive representation" to the competent authority within two weeks and directed the respondents to consider said representation and pass a "reasoned and speaking order" in accordance with the law within three months.

All questions regarding limitation, entitlement, and the legal standing of the heirs to claim specific service benefits were left open for the competent authority’s determination.