Authorities must decide heirs’ regularisation claim by a reasoned order, subject to eligibility under law.

The applicants are the widow and children of Ghulam Nabi Mir, who worked as a labourer/mazdoor under the respondents and died in harness on 26 August 2024.

They sought regularisation of his service under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993, relying on his alleged grant of temporary status from 1 September 1993 and representations seeking regularisation.

The deceased had previously joined other casual labourers in O.A. No. 062/00139/2019, which was disposed of with a direction to consider their legal notice and issue a reasoned order.

During the hearing of the present application, the applicants limited their request to having the application and the deceased’s earlier representations treated as a comprehensive representation and decided by the respondents.

Whether the applicants’ application and the deceased’s earlier representations should be treated as a comprehensive representation for consideration by the respondents.

Whether the Tribunal should determine the deceased’s entitlement to regularisation and consequential benefits in this proceeding.

The applicants relied on the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993, particularly Clause 8, which provides for filling specified Group D vacancies from among casual workers with temporary status, subject to the scheme’s terms.

They also invoked Secretary of State v. Uma Devi, Jaggo v. Union of India, and Bikhani Devi v. Union of India, as well as a Ministry of Defence letter dated 23 November 2017.

The Tribunal did not determine the scope or application of those authorities; it directed the respondents to decide the representation under the applicable statutory provisions, rules, and governing legal framework, subject to the applicants’ eligibility and entitlement.

The applicants expressly narrowed their requested relief to consideration of a comprehensive representation, and the respondents did not object to disposal on that basis, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

In view of that limited prayer, the Tribunal declined to express any opinion on the merits of regularisation or consequential benefits.

Instead, it required the respondents to consider the application, its annexures, and the deceased’s earlier representations together, and to issue a reasoned and speaking order under the governing law.

It directed the respondents to treat the application, accompanying documents, and the deceased’s earlier representations as a comprehensive representation and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from service of a certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the O.A., subject to eligibility and entitlement under law.