Pending overtime-allowance representation must be decided within 90 days without adjudicating entitlement.

The applicant, a Motor Vehicle Driver-I in the Southern Railway, claimed that he belonged to the continuous-service category and was entitled to overtime allowance for duties performed beyond 96 hours in a fortnight.

He alleged that he performed overtime duties between 30 August 2020 and 5 June 2021, but was not paid the corresponding overtime allowance despite submitting logbooks, trip sheets, and overtime slips.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 3 December 2023 seeking payment of the overtime allowance, which remained pending.

He therefore approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for payment based on the relevant records.

At the hearing, he confined his request to a direction to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer to consider and dispose of the representation.

Whether the applicant’s representation claiming overtime allowance for duties performed beyond 96 hours in a fortnight was required to be considered by the competent railway authority?

Whether the Tribunal should direct the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer to determine the applicant’s entitlement and dispose of the pending representation within a specified period?

The Tribunal applied the principle that a pending representation concerning an employee’s service-related monetary entitlement must be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

The applicant’s claim was founded on the asserted entitlement of continuous-service railway employees to overtime allowance for work beyond 96 hours in a fortnight, with supporting reliance on the railway logbooks, overtime slips, the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 3 January 2022, and the relevant provision of the Indian Railway Model SOP, 2018.

However, the Tribunal did not finally adjudicate the applicant’s substantive entitlement or determine the amount payable.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had submitted a representation supported by service records and overtime documents, but that the representation had not been considered.

Since the applicant’s counsel limited the relief sought to consideration of the representation, and the respondents’ counsel agreed that it could be examined in accordance with law, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to leave the merits of the overtime claim to the competent authority.

Accordingly, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer was directed to examine the applicant’s entitlement on the basis of the applicable rules and records, including the logbook and overtime documents, rather than the Tribunal itself deciding the claim.

The Tribunal did not grant a direct order for payment or conclusively hold that the applicant was entitled to the claimed overtime allowance.

There was no order as to costs.