Regularisation claim must first be raised by representation for a reasoned decision.

The applicant stated that he had worked as a casual Beldar in the CPWD since 22 November 2003 and sought regularisation with retrospective effect, alleging that juniors had been regularised and that 34 sanctioned Beldar posts were vacant

He relied on several Supreme Court decisions in support of his claim

At the admission hearing, counsel confirmed that the applicant had not made a representation to the respondent authorities

Whether the applicant should first submit a representation to the respondent authorities regarding his claim for regularisation

Whether the Tribunal should determine the merits of the regularisation claim at the admission stage

The Tribunal directed the applicant to submit a detailed representation and required the respondents to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order “as per rules and law”.

Although the applicant relied on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, Jaggo v. Union of India, Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, and State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, the Tribunal did not assess or apply those authorities to the merits of the claim

Because the applicant had not first placed his grievance before the respondent authorities by way of a representation, the Tribunal considered that the immediate purpose of the OA could be met by directing him to do so and requiring a time-bound decision

It expressly refrained from examining whether he was entitled to regularisation or consequential benefits

The applicant was directed to submit a detailed representation, with the case law relied upon, within seven days; the respondents were directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the Tribunal’s order

The Tribunal clarified that it had not considered the merits of the case; pending MAs were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.