Competent authority must decide regularisation representations by a reasoned order in light of applicable precedent.

The four applicants were employees of the Department of Social Welfare, GNCT of Delhi: applicants 1–3 were working as Nursing Orderlies and applicant 4 as a Mali.

They approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking consideration and regularisation of their services, consequential benefits, and protection against replacement by outsourced or fresh employees.

They relied on the Tribunal’s order dated 7 August 2009 in O.A. No. 120/2009, pursuant to which certain casual workers, including Smt. Laxmi Devi and three others, were allegedly regularised.

During hearing, the applicants limited their prayer to a direction for consideration of their pending representation dated 6 April 2026 in light of the earlier Tribunal order.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ representation dated 6 April 2026 concerning regularisation, in light of the Tribunal’s order dated 7 August 2009 in O.A. No. 120/2009.

2. Whether the applicants were entitled, at the admission stage, to a direction restraining the respondents from replacing their services through outsourcing or fresh appointments.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government employee to approach the Tribunal in respect of service-related grievances.

It applied the principles of natural justice, holding that the applicants’ pending representation should be considered by the competent authority and determined through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal also directed consideration of the representation in light of its earlier decision dated 7 August 2009 in O.A. No. 120/2009, without treating that decision as conclusively establishing the applicants’ entitlement to regularisation.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the applicants’ substantive claim to regularisation or determine whether the distinction between contractual and casual employment was legally sustainable.

Since the applicants agreed to pursue a limited procedural relief, and since their representation dated 6 April 2026 remained pending, the Tribunal considered that natural justice required the competent authority to examine the claim and provide reasons.

The earlier order in O.A. No. 120/2009 was directed to be considered as a relevant factor, but the respondents were expressly left free to decide the representation in accordance with law.

The Tribunal therefore refrained from granting direct regularisation or issuing a substantive restraint against outsourcing or fresh appointments.

O.A. No. 3211/2026 was disposed of at the admission stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider and decide the applicants’ representation dated 6 April 2026, in light of the Tribunal’s order dated 7 August 2009 in O.A. No. 120/2009, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order, and to communicate the decision to the applicants.

No order as to costs was made.