Competent authority must consider casual workers’ wage-benefit representation and issue a reasoned order.

The applicants were engaged as casual ward-watch workers under the Archaeological Survey of India at Karvi Sub-Division. Applicant No. 1 was engaged in February 2010, Applicant No. 2 in 2010, Applicant No. 3 in 2001, and Applicant No. 4 in 2014.

They claimed to have continuously worked for eight hours a day and sought wages equivalent to 1/30th of the minimum of the relevant Group ‘D’ pay scale plus Dearness Allowance (DA).

They alleged that similarly situated casual workers in other sub-divisions had received this benefit, whereas they had not.

The applicants submitted a representation dated 27 April 2026 seeking treatment as regular workers and payment of the claimed wages.

As the representation remained pending, they instituted the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

During hearing, the applicants relied upon the Tribunal’s order dated 24 December 2025 in O.A. No. 594 of 2018, stated to have granted similar benefits.

Whether Respondent No. 4 should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representation dated 27 April 2026 seeking regularisation/treatment as regular workers and payment at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum of the relevant Group ‘D’ pay scale plus DA?

Whether the applicants’ representation should be considered in light of the Tribunal’s order dated 24 December 2025 in O.A. No. 594 of 2018 and the applicable Government instructions?

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which enables an aggrieved person to seek adjudication of service-related grievances before the Tribunal.

The applicants relied upon the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 7 June 1988 and the Ministry of Culture’s Office Memorandum dated 11 May 2009 concerning wages and benefits payable to eligible casual workers at the rate of 1/30th of the relevant minimum pay plus DA.

The Tribunal also directed consideration of the applicants’ claim in the light of its earlier order dated 24 December 2025 in O.A. No. 594 of 2018, without treating that order as conclusively establishing the applicants’ entitlement.

The governing principle applied was that a competent authority must consider and decide a pending representation by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The applicants restricted their request at the hearing to a direction for consideration of their pending representation, rather than seeking immediate adjudication of their entitlement on merits.

The respondents raised no objection to such a direction.

Since the representation concerned the applicants’ claim for parity with similarly situated casual workers and relied upon the Tribunal’s earlier decision in O.A. No. 594 of 2018, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require Respondent No. 4, being the competent authority, to examine the claim with reference to that decision and the applicable legal instructions.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from determining whether the applicants were in fact entitled to regularisation or payment at the claimed rate.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not entered into the merits of the applicants’ claim.

No order as to costs was made, and any pending Miscellaneous Applications were also disposed of.