Application treated as representation; competent authority directed to decide claims through a reasoned order.

The applicant claimed continuous engagement as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) through successive outsourcing agencies, allegedly since 2 September 2016, against a sanctioned and perennial post at AIIMS Rishikesh.

He asserted that, despite receiving wages from the contractor, he had worked under the direct supervision, control and administration of the official respondents for approximately 12–14 years.

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

The official respondents opposed the application on the grounds that the applicant was engaged through an outsourcing agency, that his grievance lay against the contractor, that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and that no prior representation had been submitted.

The Registry also raised an objection under Section 20 of the Act for want of such representation.

Whether the Original Application was maintainable before the Tribunal when the applicant was engaged through an outsourcing agency and the dispute allegedly concerned the contractor rather than the official respondents?

Whether the Original Application was liable to be rejected for failure to first submit a representation to the competent authority under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?

Whether the applicant was entitled to regularisation, minimum time-scale pay and consequential service benefits on the basis of his alleged continuous service under the supervision and control of AIIMS Rishikesh?

The proceedings arose under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved person to approach the Tribunal for redress of service grievances.

Section 20 embodies the requirement of exhaustion of available departmental remedies, including submission of a prior representation, before institution of proceedings before the Tribunal.

The respondents also relied upon the Tribunal’s jurisdictional limitation under Section 14 in relation to a person allegedly engaged by an outsourcing contractor.

The applicant relied upon State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, and subsequent decisions concerning regularisation of long-serving workers, as well as State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, concerning entitlement to minimum pay for equal work.

However, the Tribunal expressly refrained from adjudicating the merits, maintainability, nature of engagement or applicability of those precedents.

The Tribunal noted the competing submissions regarding the applicant’s status: he was admittedly paid by the contractor, but it was asserted that he worked under the direct supervision and control of the official respondents.

Since the Registry had objected to the absence of a prior representation under Section 20, and the respondents had also challenged maintainability and jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered it appropriate not to decide those contentious questions at the admission stage.

On the applicant’s request, and without prejudice to the parties’ rights, the Tribunal treated the Original Application itself as a representation.

This procedural course dispensed with the Registry’s objection while preserving all questions concerning the applicant’s employment relationship, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and his substantive entitlement.

The competent authority among the official respondents was directed to consider and decide the applicant’s claims by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within 30 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on maintainability, the nature of the applicant’s engagement, regularisation, pay parity or any other substantive relief, and that all rights and contentions remained open.

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