Regularization and Parity Claims Must Be Considered by a Reasoned Speaking Order.

The applicant claimed that he had worked as a daily-rated worker since 1991 and was entitled to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 and related Government Orders.

He relied on his election-related duties and the 13th Empowered Committee’s consideration of his case alongside that of Irshad Ahmad Dar.

Dar was subsequently regularized, and arrears were sanctioned; the applicant alleged unequal treatment and sought parity and consequential benefits.

After hearing the parties, the Tribunal was asked to treat the Original Application as a representation and direct the respondents to consider the claim.

Whether the applicant’s claim for regularization and parity with Irshad Ahmad Dar should be considered by the respondents as a representation.

Whether consequential arrears and other admissible benefits should also be considered, subject to the applicable eligibility requirements and law.

The claim was to be considered under SRO 64 of 1994, read with Government Order No. 355-GAD of 1996 dated 30 April 1996 and Government Order No. 1733-GAD of 1997 dated 14 October 1997, and in light of Circular No. GAD of 2001 dated 23 October 2001.

The Tribunal directed consideration in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and law, subject to the applicant satisfying the requisite eligibility conditions and there being no legal impediment. It expressed no view on the merits.

The applicant sought only a direction for consideration, and the respondents did not oppose disposal with appropriate directions, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

The Tribunal therefore found no useful purpose in keeping the matter pending and directed the competent authority to examine the regularization and parity claims, including the relevance of Dar’s case, the cited Government Orders and Circular, and the documents filed with the application. It left all factual and legal questions open for that determination.

It directed the respondents to treat it as a representation and pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within ten weeks after service of a certified copy; the decision must be communicated to the applicant within one week thereafter.

No order as to costs was made.