An Original Application may be treated as a representation for a reasoned decision without adjudicating its merits.

The applicant, Praveen Vyas, claimed that he had been continuously working as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) at AIIMS Rishikesh since 22 March 2016 through successive outsourcing agencies.

Although his wages were paid by the contractor, he alleged that he worked under the direct supervision, control and administration of the official respondents and against a sanctioned and perennial post.

He sought regularisation, payment of minimum time-scale wages and consequential service benefits, relying on several Supreme Court decisions, including State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh.

The official respondents opposed the application, contending that the applicant was engaged through an outsourcing agency, that any service grievance lay against the contractor, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

They also argued that the applicant had not first submitted a representation to the respondents as contemplated by Section 20 of the Act.

The Registry independently raised an objection regarding non-compliance with Section 20.

During hearing, the applicant requested that the Original Application be treated as a representation.

Whether the Original Application was maintainable in the absence of a prior representation to the respondents as contemplated by Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?

Whether the applicant’s engagement through an outsourcing agency, and the alleged exercise of direct supervision and control by AIIMS authorities, affected the maintainability and merits of his claims for regularisation and service benefits?

Whether the applicant was entitled to regularisation, minimum time-scale wages and consequential service benefits?

The Tribunal proceeded under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which enables an aggrieved person to approach the Tribunal by an application, subject to the statutory scheme of the Act.

Section 20 requires exhaustion of available departmental remedies, ordinarily through a prior representation, before an application is made to the Tribunal.

The respondents also relied on Section 14 to challenge the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over a person engaged through an outsourcing agency.

The applicant relied upon the principles governing regularisation and constitutional limitations on such relief under State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, as well as decisions concerning regularisation, outsourced employment and payment of minimum wages, including State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh.

However, the Tribunal did not adjudicate or apply those substantive precedents and expressly kept all questions on merits and maintainability open.

The Tribunal noted the competing submissions concerning the applicant’s outsourced status, the respondents’ alleged direct supervision and control, and the objection that no prior representation had been made.

Without expressing any view on whether the applicant was an employee of the official respondents, whether the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction, or whether he was entitled to regularisation or equal pay, the Tribunal accepted the applicant’s request to treat the Original Application itself as a representation.

In view of that procedural course, the objection based on Section 20 was dispensed with, and the matter was remitted to the competent authority for an administrative determination in accordance with law.

The Tribunal deliberately refrained from deciding the substantive claims or the jurisdictional objection.

The Original Application was treated as a representation; the Registry’s objection was dispensed with; and the Registry was directed to assign the matter a regular number.

The competent authority among the official respondents was directed to consider and decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.

All rights and contentions, including maintainability and the merits of the applicant’s claims, were expressly kept open.

The Original Application was disposed of at the admission stage, with no order as to costs.