Authorities must decide the employee’s regularisation representation by a reasoned order before disengaging him.

The applicant was engaged at AIIMS, Rishikesh through successive outsourcing agencies from 13 June 2014 and claimed continuous service as a Private Secretary against a sanctioned and perennial post under the supervision and control of the respondents.

He sought regularization, payment of minimum time-scale wages, and consequential service benefits, relying upon various Supreme Court decisions including State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh.

The applicant had submitted a representation dated 27 December 2025 to AIIMS, Rishikesh seeking regularization.

Meanwhile, the respondents had finalized the selection process for appointment of regular employees, and the contractor issued the applicant a notice dated 28 August 2026 discontinuing his services after one month.

During the proceedings, the applicant limited his request to a direction for consideration and disposal of his representation by a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of the applicant’s representation dated 27 December 2025 seeking regularization through a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the applicant’s services should be protected from disengagement until the representation is decided.

Whether the applicant was entitled, at this stage, to adjudication of his claims for regularization, minimum time-scale wages, and consequential service benefits.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the procedural principle that a representation raising a service-related grievance must be considered by the competent authority and decided through an appropriate, reasoned, and speaking order.

The applicant relied upon the principles concerning regularization and equal pay reflected in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327, and other cited authorities, as well as State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, concerning minimum wages for employees performing comparable duties.

However, the Tribunal did not determine the applicability or merits of those precedents and expressly proceeded without adjudicating the substantive claims.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had rendered service through an outsourcing agency since 2014, that the respondents had initiated and finalized a process for regular appointments, and that the applicant faced discontinuation pursuant to the contractor’s notice dated 28 August 2026.

Since the applicant, with the respondents’ consent, confined his immediate relief to consideration of his pending representation, the Tribunal considered it appropriate not to examine the merits of regularization, wage parity, or the alleged constitutional violations at the admission stage.

Applying the requirement of a reasoned and speaking administrative decision, it directed the competent authority to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.

To preserve the efficacy of that direction, the Tribunal further ordered that the applicant not be disengaged until the representation was disposed of, subject to the factual condition that he had attended the office on the date of the order.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 27 December 2025 by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within six weeks from receipt of the certified order.

The respondents were also directed not to disengage the applicant until the representation was decided, provided that his stated attendance at the office on 22 September 2026 was correct.

Any connected miscellaneous application was disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.