Respondents must decide the pending representation by a reasoned, speaking order within three months.

The applicant, Pradeep Kumar, was serving as SSE/Signal in the North Central Railway and retired on 31 March 2026.

He claimed entitlement to financial/cadre upgradation to Grade Pay ₹4,800 on the basis of his seniority and the Railway Board’s scheme under which 50% of posts in Grade Pay ₹4,600 in certain Signal and Telecom Group ‘C’ cadres were to be upgraded to Grade Pay ₹4,800.

He submitted a representation dated 16 March 2026 seeking such upgradation and consequential revision of his pensionary benefits, but the representation remained pending.

He therefore approached the Tribunal seeking, inter alia, consideration of the representation, grant of retrospective upgradation, and consequential pensionary benefits.

The respondents did not oppose a direction for consideration of the representation without adjudication on the merits.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation dated 16 March 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period.

2. Whether the applicant was substantively entitled to retrospective upgradation to Grade Pay ₹4,800 and consequential revision of pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law principle that a pending representation concerning an employee’s service and pensionary rights must be considered by the competent authority and disposed of through a reasoned and speaking order.

Where the Tribunal has not examined the merits of the substantive claim, it may issue a limited mandamus requiring the authority to decide the representation within a reasonable, time-bound period.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited or applied in the order.

The applicant’s claim regarding Grade Pay ₹4,800 and consequential pensionary benefits involved disputed questions concerning the applicability and implementation of the Railway Board’s upgradation scheme, seniority, and entitlement.

Since the representation dated 16 March 2026 was pending, and the respondents had no objection to its consideration, the Tribunal found it appropriate to grant only the limited procedural relief sought at that stage.

It expressly declined to enter into the merits of the entitlement and directed the competent authority to examine the grievance objectively and issue a reasoned and speaking decision.

The respondent authority was directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 16 March 2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs.