Competent authority must decide pending regularisation representations by a reasoned order within eight weeks.

The ten applicants were working as Bus Conductors under the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, primarily in various STS units and bus termini in the Nicobar and South Andaman districts.

They submitted individual representations dated 14 August 2026 seeking regularisation of their services, claiming parity with similarly placed contractual/daily-rated employees whose services had allegedly been regularised pursuant to judicial orders.

As the representations remained pending, the applicants instituted the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, principally seeking directions for their expeditious consideration.

The applicants relied upon the Tribunal’s orders in O.A. No. 351/1198/2025 and O.A. No. 351/1344/2026, dated 29 June 2026 and 11 September 2026, respectively.

Their counsel ultimately confined the relief to consideration and disposal of the representations. The respondents raised no objection, subject to verification of the applicants’ individual cases.

Whether the applicants’ pending individual representations dated 14 August 2026 seeking regularisation were required to be considered and decided by the competent authority within a stipulated period.

Whether the ten applicants could prosecute the proceedings jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the applicants’ substantive claim for regularisation at the admission stage.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government servant to approach the Tribunal for redressal of a service-related grievance.

It applied Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, permitting joint prosecution where applicants have a common interest or common questions for determination.

The Tribunal also applied the administrative-law principle that a pending representation must be considered by the competent authority and decided through a reasoned and speaking order, without the Tribunal itself prejudging the merits.

The Tribunal took note of its earlier orders in O.A. Nos. 351/1198/2025 and 351/1344/2026, but did not independently determine whether those orders entitled the present applicants to regularisation.

Since the applicants’ immediate grievance concerned the non-disposal of their representations, and not an adjudication of their entitlement to regularisation, the Tribunal treated the relief sought as limited and innocuous.

The respondents’ consent to consideration of the representations, subject to verification of each applicant’s case, enabled the Tribunal to issue a procedural direction without examining the merits of the regularisation claim.

The Tribunal therefore directed the competent authority to consider the representations dated 14 August 2026, read with the Original Application, verify the individual cases, and communicate its decision by a reasoned and speaking order.

Joint prosecution was permitted because the applicants’ claims raised substantially common questions.

The Original Application was disposed of at the admission stage, with a direction to the competent respondent authority to consider the applicants’ individual representations dated 14 August 2026, treating the Original Application as part of those representations, after verifying each individual case, and to communicate a reasoned and speaking decision within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had made no observation on the merits of the applicants’ claims for regularisation.

There was no order as to costs.