Railway authority must decide the representation concerning discontinued family pension through a reasoned, speaking order.

Rina Chatterjee, widow of late Biswanath Chatterjee, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking restoration and disbursement of her family pension, payment of arrears from April 2026 with interest, and protection against deductions allegedly arising from excess payment

Her husband, an employee of the North Eastern Railway, retired on 31 March 2011 and died on 7 June 2016.

Thereafter, the applicant received family pension.

A revised Pension Payment Order was issued by the Accounts Officer, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, on 21 February 2024 pursuant to the Seventh Central Pay Commission, following which the family pension was resumed but subsequently discontinued

During the hearing, Respondent No. 4, the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, submitted that Northern Railway was not concerned with the matter and that the grievance related to the North Eastern Railway

The applicant conceded that she had not submitted a further representation to the competent authority and sought liberty to do so.

Whether the applicant should first submit a comprehensive representation to the competent authority of the North Eastern Railway concerning the discontinuance and non-payment of her family pension.

Whether the competent authority should consider and decide the applicant’s representation by a reasoned and speaking order within the time prescribed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved person to approach the Tribunal in relation to service matters

The matter was heard by a Single Bench pursuant to the Chairman’s order dated 10 September 2021 issued under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, where no complicated question of law was involved

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law principle that a competent authority must consider a representation and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order, thereby ensuring procedural fairness and accountability

The Tribunal did not determine the applicant’s substantive entitlement to family pension, arrears, interest, or protection against recovery.

Since the applicant had not submitted a further representation to the competent authority, and since Respondent No. 4 stated that Northern Railway was not the appropriate authority, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to direct the applicant to approach the North Eastern Railway, which had issued the revised PPO and was the authority connected with the pension claim

The Tribunal therefore adopted an exhaustion and administrative decision-making approach: the competent authority was required to examine the grievance in the first instance and issue a reasoned decision within a fixed period

The applicant was granted liberty to submit a comprehensive representation to the competent authority of the North Eastern Railway within three weeks.

Upon receipt, the competent authority was directed to decide the representation within four weeks thereafter and communicate its decision to the applicant through a reasoned and speaking order.