Representation for compensation due to postal delay to be decided in a time-bound manner.

The applicant, Shailesh Kumar Pandey, a B-Pharma and M-Pharma degree holder, applied for the post of Lecturer-Pharmacy seven years after the last notification by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj.

He dispatched his application via India Post Speed Post (Article No. U531775101IN) on April 28, 2025, which reached Varanasi RMS on April 29, 2025.

However, due to unexplained delays at Mughalsarai RMS and Prayagraj NSH, the application was not delivered to the Commission within the stipulated time.

The postal department acknowledged the delay in a letter dated June 27, 2025.

The Commission, in response to an RTI query on July 7, 2025, stated on August 12, 2025, that the application was received after the deadline and returned to the post office.

Consequently, the applicant lost the opportunity to be considered for the direct recruitment post.

The applicant then submitted a representation dated December 22, 2025, to Respondent No. 2, seeking compensation, which remained pending.

This original application was filed seeking a direction for the respondent to decide the pending representation.

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal should direct Respondent No. 2/competent authority to decide the applicant's pending representation dated December 22, 2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound manner.

The Tribunal's primary approach was to address the limited prayer made by the applicant to direct the competent authority to decide a pending representation.

This aligns with the administrative law principle of ensuring that representations made by citizens to government bodies are duly considered and adjudicated upon in a timely and reasoned manner, particularly when no other remedies are immediately sought or the merits are not yet ripe for judicial review.

The court considered the applicant's prayer, which was specifically limited to seeking a direction for Respondent No. 2/competent authority to decide his pending representation dated December 22, 2025.

The counsel for the respondents expressed no objection to such a direction.

Without delving into the merits of the underlying case concerning the postal delay and its consequences, the Tribunal found it appropriate to dispose of the Original Application solely on the basis of the limited prayer.

This approach allowed the Tribunal to exercise its power of superintendence over administrative functions, ensuring that official bodies fulfill their procedural duties by reviewing and deciding upon representations submitted to them.

It directed Respondent No. 2/competent authority to decide the applicant's representation dated December 22, 2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

There was no order as to costs.