Authorities directed to decide pending representations for regularization of casual laborers via a reasoned order.

The seven applicants were engaged as casual labourers in the Madurai Commissionerate

Following their termination from service, the applicants initiated litigation via OA No. 782/2009, which was initially dismissed by the Tribunal but subsequently modified in their favor by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in a Writ Petition

A Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the respondents against the High Court's judgment was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The applicants alleged that despite these judicial outcomes, the respondents failed to comply with the orders. Consequently, the applicants submitted multiple representations between July 2023 and March 2025 seeking regularization and "Temporary Status," claiming they had worked for more than 260 days per year since 1999

The present Original Application (OA) was filed seeking a direction for the respondents to consider these representations

1. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to consider and dispose of the applicants' pending representations regarding regularization and grant of temporary status

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of regularization under the extant schemes of the Department

The court's reasoning was guided by the "Part-Time Casual Labourers (Regularization) Scheme of CBIC 2020" and the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993"

The court applied the administrative law principle that authorities must dispose of representations through "speaking and well-reasoned orders" as per extant rules to ensure the ends of justice

The Tribunal focused on the narrow procedural question of the pending representations rather than the substantive merits of the regularization claim.

The applicants argued that their continuous service since 1999 and the favorable High Court ruling justified their regularization

Conversely, the respondents contended that the applicants did not satisfy the eligibility criteria under either the 1993 or the 2020 schemes

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had not yet formally disposed of the representations. To resolve the matter without encroaching on the administration's decision-making power, the Tribunal found it appropriate to mandate a time-bound response from the respondents

The Tribunal refrained from evaluating the merits of the eligibility claims or the issue of limitation at this stage

The respondents are ordered to pass an appropriate "speaking and well-reasoned order" in accordance with the extant rules within a period of three months from the receipt of the order

The Tribunal explicitly clarified that it did not enter into the merits of the case and that all limitation points remain open

No order was made as to costs