Representation for pensionary benefits to be considered and disposed of within six weeks.

The applicant, Mohar Singh, an ex-Cleaner aged 64 years, filed O.A. No. 4037/2025 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

He sought directions for the respondents to issue his pension after counting his casual and substitute service period for MACP and pensionary benefits, and for payment of retiral dues with interest, including DCRG with compound interest.

A counter-reply to the O.A. was yet to be filed by the respondents.

During the pendency of the O.A., the applicant filed M.A. No. 942/2026, requesting a direction to the respondents to release provisional pension until the O.A. is decided.

The respondents' counsel had not yet received a copy of the M.A.

The applicant's counsel undertook to supply a copy of the M.A. within three days and suggested disposing of the O.A. and M.A. with a limited direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the applicant's representation dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure A1 to the O.A.) within a time-bound manner.

The respondents' counsel had no objection to this request.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of the applicant's pending representation dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure A1 to the O.A.).

The Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, specifically Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the filing of applications seeking reliefs in matters relating to service conditions.

The implied legal principle is that administrative authorities are obligated to consider and decide representations made by affected parties, particularly when such representations pertain to service benefits like pensions and retiral dues.

The court was presented with an application for pension and retiral benefits (O.A. No. 4037/2025) and a subsequent application for provisional pension (M.A. No. 942/2026).

Recognizing that a counter-reply to the O.A. was still pending and that the M.A. had not yet been served on the respondents, the court opted for an expedited resolution based on the parties' mutual agreement.

Instead of delving into the merits of the complex claims regarding pension and counting service periods, the court accepted the suggestion to direct the respondents to decide the applicant's prior representation.

This approach allowed the administrative machinery to first address the applicant's grievances at their level, aligning with the principle of administrative exhaustion, without prejudicing the rights of either party.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider the applicant's representation dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure A1 to the O.A.) and dispose of the same by passing an appropriate reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

There was no order as to costs.