Respondents directed to decide representations on prior service benefits within six weeks.

The applicants, consisting of retired and serving Deputy/Additional Directors of Education and a retired Principal, filed an Original Application (O.A.) seeking a declaration that the respondents' action of not counting their past service in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) for pensionary benefits, specifically under the Unified Pension Scheme (UPS), was illegal.

They contended that their representations, including one dated 11.02.2026 (Annexure A-8), to the respondents regarding this grievance remained unconsidered.

The applicants highlighted an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) which stipulates that Administrative Secretaries can settle cases of counting past service in consultation with the Integrated Financial Advisor (IFA), referring only complex cases to the Finance Department.

1. Whether the respondents' action of not counting the applicants' past service rendered in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) for all purposes, including the benefit of the Unified Pension Scheme (UPS), is illegal.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of the applicants' representations regarding the counting of past service for pensionary benefits.

The court primarily considered the principles of administrative law concerning the disposal of representations by governmental authorities.

Specifically, it implicitly referred to the guidance provided by the respondents' own Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure A-1), which outlines the procedure for settling cases related to the counting of past service at the administrative secretary level in consultation with the Integrated Financial Advisor.

The court did not delve into the merits of whether the applicants' past NVS service should be counted for pensionary benefits.

Instead, it focused on the procedural lapse by the respondents in not considering or disposing of the applicants' representations concerning their grievance.

Acknowledging the applicants' request for a limited direction and with no objection from the respondents' counsel, the Tribunal found it appropriate to direct the respondents to fulfill their administrative duty to consider and decide on the representations.

The court noted that the respondents' own OM dated 18.11.2025 provided a mechanism for addressing such issues at the administrative level, thereby reinforcing the need for the representations to be considered under the established internal procedure.

It unequivocally directed the respondents to consider the applicants' representations and pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the Order.

The Tribunal further mandated that the respondents should consider their own OM dated 18.11.2025 while passing such an order.

No order was made as to costs.