Respondent Authority Directed to Pass Reasoned Order on Pending Representations Concerning Cadre Restructuring and Promotion

The applicants (43 nursing/medical staff) are employees at the Central Hospital, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach

They approached the Tribunal seeking the implementation of Railway Board Orders No. 177/2003 and 178/2019, which pertain to cadre restructuring, publication of a seniority list, and consequential promotions

The applicants had received information via an RTI reply in February 2025 stating that the restructuring process was "under process"

Despite submitting collective representations in 2025 (Annexure A/4), the respondents failed to pass any orders or grant the benefits

The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the non-disclosure of applicant designations and the impermissibility of a joint application for individual relief like promotion

1. Whether the delay in filing the Original Application should be condoned based on the circumstances presented in M.A. 350/317/2026

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to a time-bound direction for the disposal of their pending representations regarding cadre restructuring and promotion

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the filing of applications for Redressal of grievances

Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which permits joint prosecution of an application when the cause of action is common

The court also exercised its discretionary power to condone delay under the principle of substantial justice for the purpose of ensuring administrative accountability in matters of "generic" grievances

The Tribunal noted that while the respondents challenged the maintainability of the joint O.A. and the lack of specific employee designations, the core grievance—denial of promotion and restructuring benefits—was "generic in nature"

Regarding the RTI response from February 2025 indicating the process was ongoing, the Tribunal found it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the O.A.

The Tribunal avoided adjudicating on the merits of the promotional claims, acknowledging that individual prospects might vary, but found the prayer for a directed response to the 2025 representations to be "innocuous" and necessary for administrative closure

Without entering into the merits of the case, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by directing the competent respondent authority to consider the applicants' collective representations (Annexure A/4) from 2025 and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the law

This order must be complied with within 90 days from the date of receipt of the court’s order

No costs were awarded