Respondents must decide the pending representation through a reasoned speaking order within eight weeks.

The applicants, railway employees, claimed entitlement to ACP/MACP benefits in terms of the decision of the Tribunal in OA No. 3606/2013.

In an earlier proceeding, OA No. 668/2025, the Tribunal directed the respondents to examine their case and pass an appropriate order in light of OA No. 3606/2013.

The respondents thereafter rejected the claim by a speaking order dated 27 August 2015, stating that the decision in OA No. 3606/2013 had been challenged before the Delhi High Court and that the issue would not be implemented until the law was settled.

The applicants challenged that speaking order in OA No. 3167/2015, which was decided on 8 September 2017.

The respondents’ challenge before the Delhi High Court was dismissed by judgment dated 19 September 2024, and the subsequent SLP before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 23 March 2026.

The applicants then submitted a representation dated 26 May 2026, alleging continued non-implementation of the benefit despite its grant to similarly situated employees.

The Registry objected to numbering the present OA on the ground that the statutory six-month period following the representation had not expired.

Whether the Registry was justified in refusing to assign a regular number to the OA on the ground that the statutory six-month period after the applicants’ representation had not elapsed?

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ representation dated 26 May 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed period?

The Tribunal applied the principle that the statutory waiting period applicable to an administrative application following a representation must be assessed in the context of the entire procedural history and the subsisting grievance; the order refers to the six-month statutory period but does not specify the statutory provision by section number.

It also relied upon the binding procedural history arising from OA No. 3606/2013, the earlier directions in OA No. 668/2025, and the adjudication in OA No. 3167/2015, whose subsequent challenge was rejected by the Delhi High Court and whose SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

A public authority must consider a pending representation and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order, particularly where the applicants allege non-implementation of judicially recognised benefits.

The Tribunal held that the Registry’s objection could not be sustained merely by calculating the period from the applicants’ latest representation.

The applicants had pursued the issue through earlier proceedings, and the respondents’ refusal to extend the ACP/MACP benefit had rested on the pendency of their challenge to the earlier judicial decision.

That challenge had ultimately failed before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.

In these circumstances, and in view of the applicants’ continuing allegation that similarly situated persons had received the benefit, the Tribunal overruled the objection and directed consideration of the representation.

Since the respondents did not oppose such limited relief, the Tribunal refrained from examining the substantive merits of the ACP/MACP claim.

The OA was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ representation dated 26 May 2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the applicants’ entitlement to ACP/MACP benefits.

There was no order as to costs.