Unresolved pension and gratuity claims must be decided by a reasoned, time-bound order.

The applicant, a retired Railway employee, claimed that his qualifying service had been wrongly calculated as 29 years, 7 months and 24 days rather than 31 years and 7 months, resulting in lower gratuity and pension.

He asserted that he had first worked as a casual labourer before his regular appointment and relied, among other authorities, on *Shri Bhagwati v. Union of India*.

The respondents stated that his service had been counted from his appointment on 4 March 1973, that no record or evidence supported the claimed casual-labour service, and that his retiral dues had been paid on the basis of the calculated qualifying service.

The applicant had submitted a detailed representation on 6 March 2023, which remained undecided.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant’s pending representation concerning calculation of qualifying service and retiral benefits.

2. Whether the Tribunal should itself direct payment of the claimed gratuity and revised pension.

The Tribunal did not determine the applicant’s substantive entitlement under any specific statute, service rule, or cited precedent.

It applied the procedural principle that a pending representation raising a service-related grievance should be considered by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order.

Any consequential refixation and payment were made conditional on the authority finding the claim genuine and consistent with the extant rules and applicable case law.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s claim turned on a disputed calculation of qualifying service and that the parties gave differing accounts of his pre-appointment service and the supporting records.

Because the representation of 6 March 2023 had not been decided, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to examine the grievance rather than determine the claimed service period and benefits itself.

It directed that the authority consider the applicable rules and case law and, if the claim were found genuine, provide the resulting refixation and consequential benefits.

It directed the competent authority to decide the 6 March 2023 representation by a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the certified order.

If the representation was unavailable, the respondents were to inform the applicant within ten days; the applicant could then submit a comprehensive representation, to be decided within three months of receipt.

If the claim were found genuine, refixation and payment of consequential benefits were to be completed within one month of the decision.

No costs were awarded, and associated MAs were disposed of.