Respondents directed to decide pending PLI representations through reasoned and speaking orders within six weeks.

The 22 applicants were retired Accounts Officers of BSNL who claimed entitlement to Productivity Linked Incentive (PLI).

They alleged inaction by the respondents in granting the benefit and relied upon decisions of Coordinate Benches in O.A. No. 1876/2010 and O.A. No. 3618/2014 dated 8 November 2016.

The applicants filed a miscellaneous application seeking permission to institute the Original Application jointly; the respondents raised no objection, and the application was allowed.

The respondents opposed the O.A. on the ground that it was hopelessly barred by limitation, as the applicants had approached the Tribunal after nearly 23 years.

During hearing, the applicants limited their prayer to a direction requiring the respondents to decide their pending representations through a reasoned and speaking order.

1. Whether the applicants’ joint filing of the Original Application should be permitted.

2. Whether, despite the respondents’ objection regarding a delay of nearly 23 years, the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations concerning PLI by a reasoned and speaking order.

3. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the applicants’ substantive entitlement to PLI at the admission stage.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle permitting persons having a common grievance to institute proceedings jointly, particularly where the respondents raised no objection.

It also applied the principle that an administrative authority must consider pending representations and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

Since the applicants confined their relief to consideration of their representations, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. without entering into the merits or conclusively determining the limitation objection.

The applicants referred to the Coordinate Bench decisions in O.A. No. 1876/2010 and O.A. No. 3618/2014 dated 8 November 2016, but the Tribunal did not adjudicate their applicability or merits in the present order.

The Tribunal accepted the joint filing because the applicants had a common grievance and the respondents had no objection.

Although the respondents contended that the claim was delayed by nearly 23 years, the applicants sought only a limited procedural direction rather than immediate grant of PLI.

Accordingly, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the respondents to examine the pending representations, including the latest representation dated 3 August 2026, and to issue a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from deciding the merits of the PLI claim or finally ruling on the limitation objection at that stage.

O.A. No. 3437/2026 was disposed of at the admission stage, without adjudication on merits, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations annexed as Annexure A1 (colly.), including the latest representation dated 3 August 2026, by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.