Authorities must consider the regularisation representation within four weeks, in accordance with law.

The petitioners, daily-wage municipal workers seeking regularisation, had earlier approached the High Court in W.P. No. 115153 of 2019 and connected matters. By order dated 15 July 2024, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to verify the sanctioned posts available on the petitioners’ appointment dates and consider their cases individually, applying the principles in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and M.L. Kesari; the process was to be completed within six months.

A subsequent order clarified that the authorities should determine whether the relevant notification had been published in the official Gazette and, if not, proceed on the basis that the appointments were made by the competent appointing authority.

The petitioners submitted a representation seeking implementation of those directions, but no action had been taken by the time of this petition.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioners’ representation seeking implementation of the earlier orders concerning their regularisation claims.

2. Whether the Court should prescribe a time limit for that consideration.

The Court’s directions were grounded in the earlier orders in the petitioners’ connected proceedings, which required the Deputy Commissioner to verify the sanctioned posts and consider each petitioner’s case individually in light of Umadevi and M.L. Kesari.

The later clarification required the authorities to determine whether the relevant notification had been gazetted and, if it had not, to proceed as though the appointments were made by the competent appointing authority.

In the present petition, the Court did not independently determine entitlement to regularisation; it directed consideration of the representation in accordance with law.

The Court noted that its prior orders had set out a process for examining the petitioners’ regularisation claims, but the petitioners’ subsequent representation had not been acted upon.

Given that the representation sought implementation of those directions, the Court held that the respondents should consider it, while leaving the question of entitlement to be decided by the authorities in accordance with law.

The matter was listed for reporting compliance on 16 November 2026.