Respondents Directed to Decide Representation for Regularization of Contractual Teachers per Established Judicial Precedents

The 40 applicants are Group 'B' Nursery Teachers who have been working with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for 15 to 22 years.

Despite this continuous service, they remain un-regularized. They filed the present Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the respondents' failure to regularize their services as Assistant Teacher (Primary) and seeking pay parity with regular employees.

During the hearing, the applicants limited their request to a time-bound consideration of their pending representation/legal notice dated 26.11.2025 in light of specific High Court precedents.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants' pending representation regarding regularization and pay parity in a time-bound manner.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to interim protection against coercive action until their representation is decided.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the tribunal's jurisdiction over service matters.

Principles of natural justice, requiring administrative authorities to pass reasoned and speaking orders when deciding citizen representations.

Legal principles regarding regularization established by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr. v. Kalpana Sharma & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 4646/2026.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the regularization claim but focused on the procedural delay in handling the applicants' legal notice. The court noted that the applicants had been serving for approximately two decades and had a pending representation dated 26.11.2025.

By directing the respondents to decide this representation in light of Kalpana Sharma, the Tribunal linked the applicants' facts—long-term service without regularization—to existing judicial benchmarks for similar municipal employees. To ensure the remedy was meaningful, the Tribunal applied the principle of maintaining the status quo by prohibiting coercive steps during the decision-making period.

Crucially, the Tribunal ordered that no coercive steps be taken against the applicants until the decision is communicated, and further provided that any adverse order would not be implemented for 15 days following its communication to allow the applicants to seek legal recourse.