CAT - ['Chennai']
Employment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

Authorities must issue a reasoned order on the regularisation representation within two months.

P PRADAB and 24 ORS vs UT OF PUDUCHERRY AND ORS

CAT - ['Chennai']JUDGMENT: September 18, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Authorities must issue a reasoned order on the regularisation representation within two months.. P PRADAB and 24 ORS vs UT OF PUDUCHERRY AND ORS. CAT - ['Chennai']. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicants were appointed as Instructors in Computer Science in the Puducherry School Education Department pursuant to a notification dated 21 July 2010 and stated that they had served continuously since 2011. They sought regularisation against sanctioned posts, relying on an earlier proposal to absorb them and a representation dated 1 April 2026 that remained undecided. They also sought permission to file one Original Application jointly and to waive the appeal period for filing it.

Source reference: pp. 3–4

The Tribunal allowed both miscellaneous applications and directed the Registry to number the OA.

Source reference: p. 3
02

Issues

1. Whether the applicants’ representation seeking regularisation should be considered and decided by the competent authority within a fixed period.

Source reference: pp. 4–5

2. Whether the applicants’ miscellaneous applications to join together in one OA and waive the appeal period should be allowed.

Source reference: p. 3
03

Law Applied

The order cites no statute, regulation, or precedent.

Source reference: no citation

It applies the procedural principle that, where the requested relief is limited to securing a decision on a pending representation, the Tribunal may direct the competent authority to consider and decide that representation by a speaking and well-reasoned order within a specified period, without examining the underlying merits.

Source reference: pp. 4–5
04

Reasoning

The applicants submitted that their representation dated 1 April 2026 had not been decided and asked for a time-bound direction. The Tribunal considered that limited request sufficient to dispose of the matter at the admission stage.

Source reference: pp. 4–5

It expressly declined to enter into the merits of the regularisation claim, leaving the competent authority to consider the representation and issue a reasoned decision.

Source reference: pp. 4–5
05

Holding

The Tribunal allowed both miscellaneous applications and directed the Registry to number the OA.

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider the applicants’ representation dated 1 April 2026 and pass a speaking and well-reasoned order within two months of receiving a copy of the Tribunal’s order. The OA was disposed of at the admission stage, with no determination on the merits of regularisation.

Source reference: p. 5
CAT - ['Chennai']

Original Court PDF

P PRADAB and 24 ORSvsUT OF PUDUCHERRY AND ORS

CAT - ['Chennai'] · September 18, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment