Competent authority must consider pending regularisation representations and issue a reasoned decision after individual verification.

The eight applicants were employees working as mazdoors, sweepers, and a computer assistant under the Directorate of Shipping Services, Andaman and Nicobar Administration.

They had submitted individual representations dated 17 July 2026 seeking regularisation of their services on parity with other contractual employees whose services had allegedly been regularised pursuant to judicial orders.

Since the representations remained pending, the applicants instituted the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking directions for their consideration and disposal.

The applicants claimed to be similarly situated to the applicants in O.A. No. 351/1198/2025, disposed of by the Tribunal on 29 June 2026.

The respondents did not oppose consideration of the representations, subject to verification of the applicants’ individual cases.

The applicants consequently limited their request to consideration and communication of a reasoned decision on their representations.

Whether the competent respondent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations dated 17 July 2026 concerning regularisation of their services.

Whether such consideration should be undertaken after verification of the applicants’ individual cases and communicated through a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed period.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which enables an aggrieved government servant to seek adjudication of service-related grievances before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The Tribunal also applied Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, permitting applicants having a common grievance or cause of action to pursue the remedy jointly; the joint-prosecution application was accordingly allowed.

Where an applicant seeks only consideration of a pending representation, the authority may be directed to examine it, verify the relevant facts, and communicate its decision by a reasoned and speaking order, without the Tribunal adjudicating the substantive claim at the admission stage.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ immediate grievance was the non-consideration of their representations, rather than a request for the Tribunal to directly order regularisation.

Since the representations were pending and the respondents had no objection to their consideration after verification of the individual cases, the Tribunal found the prayer to be innocuous and appropriate for disposal at the admission stage.

The Tribunal therefore refrained from examining the merits of the applicants’ regularisation claims or conclusively determining whether they were similarly situated to the employees in O.A. No. 351/1198/2025.

Instead, it directed the competent authority to consider the representations in light of the judgment relied upon by the applicants, treating the present Original Application as part of the representations, and to issue a reasoned decision after verifying each applicant’s case.

The Original Application was disposed of without entering into the merits, with a direction to the competent respondent authority to consider the applicants’ individual representations dated 17 July 2026, after verifying their respective cases and in light of the judgment relied upon by them.

The authority was directed to communicate a reasoned and speaking order to the applicants within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs.