Respondents directed to decide pending regularization representations via reasoned orders while maintaining status quo.

The 78 applicants are Primary Teachers serving under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) who have rendered between 15 to 22 years of continuous service

They filed this Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the respondents' failure to regularize their services as Assistant Teachers (Primary) despite their long tenure.

The applicants also sought parity in pay and allowances with regularly appointed teachers, including arrears

Prior to filing the O.A., the applicants served a representation/legal notice dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure A-5) which remained undecided

1. Whether the respondents are bound to consider the applicants' representation for regularization and pay parity in light of existing judicial precedents

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to interim protection against coercive action pending the disposal of their administrative representation

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The court relied on the principles of natural justice, which necessitate that a competent authority must decide a pending representation through a reasoned and speaking order

The court referred to the precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr. vs. Kalpana Sharma & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 4646/2026), decided on 13.04.2026, as a benchmark for the respondents' decision-making process regarding the regularization of contract or temporary teachers

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on the procedural lapse regarding the pending administrative representation.

Since the counsel for the applicants limited the request to a time-bound disposal of the legal notice dated 26.11.2025, the Tribunal found it "just and proper" to direct the respondents to fulfill their administrative duty

By mandating the decision be made in light of Kalpana Sharma (supra), the Tribunal ensured that the administrative decision aligns with existing jurisprudence on teacher regularization

To prevent the O.A. from becoming infructuous during this process, the Tribunal applied the principle of status quo by restraining the respondents from taking coercive steps until the representation is decided

The holding further directed that no coercive steps be taken against the applicants until the communication of the order

Additionally, if an adverse order is passed, it shall not be given effect for 15 days from the date of communication to allow the applicants to seek further legal recourse

The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. at the admission stage without expressing an opinion on the merits. No order as to costs was made.