Authorities Must Consider Excluded Daily Wagers’ Seniority and Regularization Claims by a Reasoned Order.

Fifteen applicants, engaged as daily wagers between 2003 and 2009, challenged a seniority list dated 1 September 2026 that omitted their names, although they said their names had appeared in an earlier list dated 9 August 2024.

They alleged that the exclusion occurred without notice or a speaking order and prejudiced their claims to seniority, regularization and consequential service benefits.

They relied, among other things, on SRO 64 of 1994 and Government Order No. 358 of 1996, and sought consideration of their claims under the applicable rules and policies.

The Tribunal allowed the joint application under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, and, at the applicants’ request, took up the OA for disposal.

1. Whether the applicants’ claims concerning their omission from the seniority list and their consequential service benefits should be considered by the respondents.

2. Whether the applicants should be considered for benefits extended to similarly situated employees, subject to eligibility, entitlement and any legal impediment.

The applicants invoked SRO 64 of 1994 and Government Order No. 358 of 1996 as sources relevant to regularization and service benefits, and relied on the principle that claims affecting seniority and service position should be considered fairly and in accordance with applicable rules.

The Tribunal did not interpret or apply those provisions to decide entitlement, nor did it cite any precedent. It instead directed consideration of the claims “in accordance with law,” subject to eligibility, entitlement and the absence of a legal impediment.

The Tribunal did not decide whether the applicants were entitled to inclusion in the seniority list, regularization or any particular benefit.

Without expressing an opinion on the merits, it considered that the applicants’ grievances could be addressed by requiring the respondents to assess their claims and determine whether they were similarly situated to employees who had received benefits.

It required that determination to be made through a detailed, reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents were directed to treat it as a representation, consider the applicants’ claims—including whether they were similarly situated to employees granted benefits—and issue and communicate a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks after service of a certified copy of the order on the competent authority.

No order as to costs was made.