DIRECTIVE ISSUED FOR CONSIDERATION OF REGULARIZATION REPRESENTATION IN LIGHT OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.

The applicant, Archana Rani, works as a Daily Wager Kitchen Staff/Mate Cook at MVID Hospital under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) since November 15, 2006.

She filed an Original Application (O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking regularization of her services and consequential benefits.

The applicant contended that other employees appointed earlier in 2006 were being considered for regularization, leading to discrimination against her.

She also asserted a vested legal right to regularization based on Supreme Court pronouncements in *Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors.* (SLP (C) No.5580 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024) and *Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr.* (Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 dated 19.08.2025).

During arguments, the applicant's counsel expressed satisfaction if the Tribunal directed the respondent to consider her pending representation dated April 8, 2024 (Annexure A-7).

The respondent’s counsel agreed to consider the representation in accordance with law.

1. Whether the Respondent should be directed to immediately regularize the Applicant as Kitchen Staff/Cook Mate?

2. Whether the Respondent should be directed to extend all consequential benefits, including pay scale, pay fixation, seniority, promotions, MACP, and arrears of pay to the Applicant?

3. Whether the competent authority among the Respondent should be directed to consider and decide the Applicant's pending representation dated April 8, 2024, in light of Supreme Court judgments, by passing a reasoned and speaking order?

The Tribunal invoked Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which grants it jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters.

The core legal principle applied was the requirement for administrative authorities to consider and decide representations from employees in a fair and lawful manner, consistent with principles of natural justice and binding judicial precedents, specifically citing *Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors.* (SLP (C) No.5580 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024) and *Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr.* (Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 dated 19.08.2025).

The court also emphasized the passing of a reasoned and speaking order when deciding representations.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's request for regularization based on her continuous daily wage service since 2006 and cited Supreme Court judgments regarding regularization.

Instead of deciding the merits of regularization directly, the Tribunal noted the applicant's counsel's submission that a direction for considering the pending representation would suffice.

The respondent's counsel readily agreed to this course of action.

The Tribunal, without expressing an opinion on the merits, found it just and proper to ensure that principles of natural justice were met by directing the respondent to consider the applicant's representation.

This approach allows the administrative authority to, in the first instance, review the applicant's claim and the cited Supreme Court pronouncements, thereby fulfilling the procedural requirement of grievance redressal at the departmental level.

The respondent is mandated to consider each contention within the representation and decide it by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order.

This decision is to be rendered in light of the directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors.* and *Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr.*, without prejudice to the respondent's contention regarding the issue of limitation.

Consequently, the O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage, and the M.A. for condonation of delay (M.A./1192/2026) was closed.

No costs were awarded.