Competent Authority Must Decide Pending Representations for Regularization Through Reasoned and Speaking Orders Within Specified Timelines

The five applicants were appointed as daily wagers (Ward Boy and Safai Karamchari) by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in 1996.

They were granted "regular daily wager" status in 2002 and subsequently regularized via an Office Order dated 21.09.2007, effective from 01.04.2006.

The applicants contended they should have been regularized from their initial date of appointment in 1996.

Before filing the Original Application (OA), they had approached a Conciliation Officer, but proceedings were closed on 31.07.2024 due to lack of jurisdiction.

A subsequent legal notice dated 15.04.2026 remained unaddressed by the respondents.

The Registry initially raised an objection regarding the exhaustion of statutory remedies, which the Tribunal overruled citing the peculiar facts and the prior conciliation attempt.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment in 1996 instead of 2006.

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondents to decide the pending legal notice in a time-bound manner.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which allows aggrieved public servants to apply for redressal of grievances relating to service matters.

The Principle of Natural Justice, ensuring that the administrative authorities consider and pass a reasoned order on a citizen's representation before judicial intervention.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants had been in continuous service for nearly three decades and had already been regularized, albeit from a later date than desired.

While the respondents argued the OA was premature as the applicants approached the Tribunal shortly after serving a legal notice, the applicants limited their prayer to a direction for the respondents to decide their claim.

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the backdated regularization claim but focused on the administrative failure to respond to the legal notice dated 15.04.2026.

By directing a "reasoned and speaking order," the Tribunal applied the rule that administrative authorities must exercise their discretion and address employee grievances through a formal, documented process.

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider the applicants' claim as per the legal notice dated 15.04.2026 and pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks of receiving the judgment.

MA 2482/2026, seeking permission to sue jointly, was allowed.

No order as to costs was made.