Respondents must decide the representation for final pensionary benefits through a reasoned order within six weeks.

The applicant, a retired Lecturer (English) in the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, superannuated on 31 December 2010.

A CBI criminal case had been registered against him in 2006 concerning the affairs of a Cooperative Group Housing Society, where he had acted as Honorary Secretary.

Due to the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the respondents sanctioned only provisional pension from 1 January 2011 and withheld his regular pension, gratuity/DCRG, and other retiral benefits, including benefits relating to the suspension period.

The Trial Court discharged the applicant from the criminal case by order dated 28 August 2025.

Although the CBI filed a revision petition, no stay of the discharge order was granted.

The applicant stated that no departmental or disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, yet his provisional pension had not been converted into regular pension and his gratuity and other retiral dues remained unpaid.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 15 June 2026 seeking release of DCRG, final pensionary benefits, and conversion of his provisional pension into regular/final pension.

As the representation had not been decided, he sought a direction for its consideration and disposal by a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 15 June 2026 concerning regularisation of pension and release of retiral benefits.

Whether the Tribunal should itself adjudicate the applicant’s entitlement to regular pension, gratuity, arrears, suspension-period benefits, and consequential interest at the admission stage.

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the jurisdictional basis for approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal for adjudication of service-related grievances.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that where a representation concerning service or pensionary benefits is pending, the competent authority should consider and decide it in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

Since the applicant sought limited relief at the admission stage, the Tribunal did not determine the substantive entitlement to pension, gratuity, or other retiral benefits.

No precedent or specific pension rule was examined or applied in the order.

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s assertion that the criminal case had ended in his discharge, that the discharge order was not stayed, and that no departmental proceedings were pending against him.

However, rather than deciding whether these circumstances legally required conversion of provisional pension into regular pension or release of gratuity and other dues, the Tribunal confined itself to the applicant’s limited prayer for consideration of his pending representation.

It therefore directed the respondents to examine the representation dated 15 June 2026 and pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the pensionary claim.

The respondents were directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 15 June 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.