Railway authority directed to decide pension representations by a reasoned order within three months.

The applicants, both retired railway employees, filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking pensionary and retiral benefits by counting half of their casual service and the period of service from the grant of temporary status until regularisation as qualifying service.

They also sought recalculation of pension and payment of consequential arrears, relying on decisions in O.A. No. 117/2007, the Patna High Court judgment dated 29 April 2013, the Supreme Court proceedings in Union of India & Ors. v. Sarju, SLP (C) No. 20041/2008, and the CAT Kolkata decision in O.A. No. 350/1472/2015.

The applicants claimed parity with similarly situated railway employees, including Shri Santosh Deb and others, who had allegedly been granted corresponding benefits.

They had submitted representations dated 26 June 2026, but no decision had been communicated to them.

The application for joint prosecution under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 was also filed and allowed.

1. Whether the applicants could be permitted to prosecute the Original Application jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, on the ground that they had a common grievance?

2. Whether the competent Railway authority should be directed to consider the applicants’ representations concerning counting of casual and temporary-status service for pensionary and retiral benefits?

3. Whether the applicants were entitled, at this stage, to a direction for grant or recalculation of pensionary benefits and consequential arrears?

The Tribunal applied Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, permitting joint prosecution where applicants have a common grievance.

It exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an aggrieved person may approach the Tribunal for redressal of a service-related grievance.

The Tribunal also relied on the procedural principle that, where an applicant seeks consideration of a pending representation, the competent authority may be directed to examine it and communicate a reasoned and speaking decision within a specified period.

The applicants relied upon the pensionary-service principles referred to in Union of India & Ors. v. Sarju, SLP (C) No. 20041/2008, the Patna High Court decision, and O.A. No. 350/1472/2015, but the Tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive applicability of those authorities to the applicants’ entitlement.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had a common grievance and accordingly permitted joint prosecution under Rule 4(5)(a).

However, since the applicants’ representations dated 26 June 2026 had not yet been decided, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to adopt a limited procedural course rather than determine the substantive pension claim at the admission stage.

It directed the competent Railway authority to examine the representations in light of the cited judicial decisions, treating the Original Application as part of the representations, and to issue a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal expressly left the question of actual entitlement to pension recalculation, arrears, and other consequential benefits to the competent authority’s consideration.

The Original Application was disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the competent Respondent authority to consider the applicants’ representations dated 26 June 2026, together with the Original Application, and communicate a reasoned and speaking decision within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.

If the applicants were found entitled to the claimed relief, the authority was directed to extend the benefit and undertake consequential follow-up action within the same period.

No order as to costs was made, and the Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of.