Mandamus for Time-Bound Disposal of Representations Seeking Enhanced Transport Allowance for Benchmark Disabilities

The applicant, Manish Kumar, was appointed as a Constable/GD in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) on May 1, 2008.

During his service, he developed severe inflammatory polyarthritis/seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, resulting in a 60% permanent locomotor disability.

On January 5, 2023, a Medical Board declared him unfit for field duties but fit for sedentary work. Following litigation in the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) No. 1837/2024), he was redeployed as an Office Assistant in Northern Railway.

The applicant holds a UDID card certifying him as a "person with benchmark disability" under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

He filed a grievance on June 9, 2025, and a representation on May 7, 2026, seeking Transport Allowance at double the normal rate per Government of India norms, which remained undecided by the respondents.

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to decide the applicant's pending representation regarding the grant of enhanced Transport Allowance for a person with benchmark disability within a specific timeframe.

The court considered the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which defines "persons with benchmark disability," and the Government of India Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated July 29, 2025, which entitles employees with such disabilities (including locomotor disability) to Transport Allowance at double the normal rates.

The court also relied on the administrative principle that representations filed by employees must be disposed of via reasoned and speaking orders.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the applicant’s eligibility for the allowance. Instead, it focused on the procedural delay by the respondents in addressing the applicant's formal requests.

Given that the applicant had provided medical certification of a 60% locomotor disability and cited relevant Government O.M.s regarding enhanced allowances, the Tribunal found it appropriate to compel the respondents to exercise their administrative duty.

The court noted the applicant's willingness to limit the prayer to a time-bound direction for disposal of his representation, thereby bypassing a full evidentiary hearing on the entitlement at this stage.

It directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's representation dated May 7, 2026, and grievance dated June 9, 2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the law and applicable rules within three months of receiving the order. No orders as to costs were made.