Respondents directed to decide applicants’ representation through a reasoned, speaking order without adjudicating the merits.

The 28 applicants were working as Watch & Ward staff under the Archaeological Survey of India, Dehradun Circle.

They claimed parity with 18 similarly situated employees whose services had been regularised pursuant to an order dated 13 January 2026.

The applicants approached the respondents seeking similar regularisation, but their request was allegedly not entertained, as stated in paragraph 4.17 of the Original Application.

The applicants contended that their claims were covered by the Tribunal’s earlier judgment dated 06 December 2023 in OA No. 387/2019, which had been affirmed by the Delhi High Court on 24 September 2024 in WP (C) No. 13562/2024 and connected matters, and had already been implemented.

During the hearing, counsel for the applicants sought a direction for consideration of their representation rather than adjudication of the regularisation claim on merits.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ representation seeking regularisation in light of the regularisation granted to similarly situated employees and the judicial decisions relied upon by the applicants?

2. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the applicants’ entitlement to regularisation at the admission stage?

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative authority must consider a duly submitted representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order, particularly where the applicant relies upon allegedly applicable judicial precedents and parity with similarly situated employees.

The Tribunal took note of its order dated 06 December 2023 in OA No. 387/2019, as affirmed by the Delhi High Court’s order dated 24 September 2024 in WP (C) No. 13562/2024 and connected matters, without independently deciding the merits of the applicants’ regularisation claim.

No statutory provision or separate legal precedent was analysed in the order.

The Tribunal noted the applicants’ assertion that their cases were similar to those of 18 employees whose services had been regularised and that their claim was covered by the earlier Tribunal and High Court decisions.

Since the applicants sought only consideration of their representation, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to leave the substantive question of regularisation to the competent authority.

It therefore directed the respondents to examine the representation in light of the cited judicial pronouncements and pass a reasoned and speaking order, while expressly recording that it had not examined the merits of the case.

It directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ representation, if filed within one week, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order, keeping in view the judicial decisions relied upon by the applicants.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of at the admission stage without any order as to costs, and the pending Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of.