Authorities Must Pass a Reasoned Order on DRW Regularization Claims Without Presuming Eligibility

The applicant stated that he was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW) on 7 September 1991, served continuously, and retired without regularization.

He sought regularization under SRO 64 of 1994, relying, among other matters, on departmental verification and recommendations that included his case among left-over DRWs.

After argument, his counsel stated that the applicant would be satisfied if the O.A. were treated as a comprehensive representation for decision in accordance with law.

The respondents did not object to disposal on that basis, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

Whether the O.A., its supporting documents and annexures, and any earlier representations should be treated as a comprehensive representation for consideration by the respondents.

Whether the Tribunal should determine the applicant’s entitlement to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 on the merits.

SRO 64 of 1994 was the regulatory framework invoked by the applicant for regularization of eligible DRWs, including those who claimed to have completed seven years of continuous service.

The Tribunal did not interpret or determine the requirements of SRO 64; it directed the respondents to decide the representation under the applicable statutory provisions, rules, and governing legal framework, subject to the applicant’s eligibility and entitlement and to the absence of any legal impediment.

The Tribunal recorded the applicant’s evidence of pre-1994 engagement, long service, and departmental verification and recommendations, but did not adjudicate their legal effect.

The applicant limited the relief sought at the hearing to consideration of his case as a comprehensive representation, and the respondents had no objection to that course.

Accordingly, the Tribunal left the merits—including eligibility for regularization—open and required a reasoned decision under the governing law.

The respondents were directed to treat the O.A., its documents and annexures, and any earlier representations as a comprehensive representation, and to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the applicable legal framework and the recommendations of the Joint Director, Agriculture (Extension), subject to eligibility and any legal impediment.

The decision was to be made within six weeks after service of a certified copy of the order and a copy of the O.A. on the respondents.