Ratan Ram vs NORTHERN RAILWAY on 16 October 2026

1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Headquarters Office, Baroda House, New Delhi.

2. Chief Administrative Officer/Construction, Northern Railway, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi.

3. Chief Project Manager/Construction, Northern Railway, Lucknow.

4. Dy. Chief Engineer/Construction-II, Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow.

5. Assistant Executive Engineer/Construction, Office of Chief Project Manager (Const.), Northern Railway, Lucknow.

….Respondents

By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

O R D E R (ORAL)

PER HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A) In this case relating to the retirement dues, the applicant has sought the following reliefs: “(a) To set-aside the order dated 04.04.2025, contained in Annexure No. 1, as issued by the respondent No. 5 for and on behalf of respondent No. 4 with all consequential benefits.

(b) . To issue order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amount to the tune of Rs. 6,44,878.12/- which has been deducted from the settlement dues/Gratuity of the applicant towards the alleged excess payment made to the applicant along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of its due till the date of actual payment.

(c) To issue order/direction/in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the applicant dated 26.04.2025 followed by reminders dated 19.06.2025

and 12.12.2025, contained in Annexure Nos. 5, 6 and 7, in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

(d) Issue such other order/direction which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(e) Allow the Original Application with cost against the respondents in view of the facts and circumstances, legal provisions and grounds raised in the Application.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the instant O.A. may be disposed of as applicant is only seeking decision on the representations preferred by him and ends of justice would be served if a direction is given by this Tribunal to the respondents/competent authority to consider and dispose of the pending representations of the applicant attached as Annexure No. 5 (pages 32 to 34), Annexure No. 6 (pages 35 to 37) and Annexure No. 7 (pages 38 to 40) of this OA, by way of reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period of time.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents orally opposed the aforesaid prayer; however, submitted that, if so directed, at least two months’ time may be given for disposal of applicant’s case in the said manner. 5.1 Keeping in view the innocuous prayer made by the applicant, this O.A. is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the pending representations of the applicant attached as Annexure No. 5 (pages 32 to 34), Annexure No. 6 (pages 35 to 37) and Annexure No. 7 (pages 38 to 40) of this OA, by way of reasoned and speaking order to be communicated to the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 5.2 Associated MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.

5.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar)

Member (A)

Vidya Vidya Ben Waghela Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Date: 2026.10.21 15:47:16 +05'30'