Directive to decide pending representation regarding counting of past service for consequential benefits.

The applicant, Sunil Kumar, was appointed as a Swachchhata Karamchari in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on a contract/daily wage basis in 2004

After approximately 17 years of service, he was regularized on April 8, 2021

The grievance of the applicant is that his past service from April 1, 2004, until the date of regularization was not counted for the purposes of seniority, increments, and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP)

The applicant preferred a representation dated November 19, 2024, to the respondents, which remained pending

Consequently, the applicant filed this Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction for the respondents to count his entire service and decide his representation

1. Whether the respondents can be directed to consider and decide the applicant's pending representation regarding the counting of past daily wage/contractual service for consequential benefits

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the counting of service from April 1, 2004, to April 8, 2021, for the purposes of MACP, seniority, and increments

The Tribunal operated under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers it to adjudicate disputes regarding the service matters of local authorities

The principle of natural justice, specifically the right to have a statutory representation considered by the competent authority in a timely and reasoned manner

The court further relied on the procedural doctrine of judicial economy to dispose of the matter at the admission stage by directing an administrative remedy rather than adjudicating the merits of the service claim

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of whether contractual service must be counted for regularization benefits

Instead, it focused on the procedural lapse regarding the respondents' failure to respond to the applicant's representation dated November 19, 2024

During the hearing, the applicant's counsel limited the prayer to a time-bound disposal of the said representation

The respondents’ counsel consented to this approach, agreeing that the representation would be decided in accordance with the law via a speaking order

The Tribunal reasoned that the principles of natural justice would be satisfied by compelling the competent authority to exercise its administrative discretion and communicate its decision to the applicant before the court intervened on the legal merits

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's pending representation dated November 19, 2024, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving the court’s order

The respondents were ordered to communicate the decision to the applicant immediately thereafter

All pending M.A.s were disposed of with no order as to costs