Respondents must consider regularization representations in light of applicable precedents and pass a reasoned order.

The 20 applicants were working as casual labourers with the Archaeological Survey of India and claimed to have rendered more than ten years of service.

They sought regularisation on the basis of similarly placed employees who had obtained such relief in O.A. No. 387/2019, decided by the Tribunal on 6 December 2023.

The respondents’ challenge to that decision in W.P. (C) No. 13562/2024 and connected matters was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 24 September 2025, and the Tribunal’s order was implemented.

The applicants stated that individual representations were not being entertained, although representations dated 16 March 2026 and 27 July 2026 had been submitted through their association.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ representations seeking regularisation in light of the decisions in O.A. No. 387/2019 and W.P. (C) No. 13562/2024

2. Whether the Tribunal could dispose of the application without examining the merits of the applicants’ substantive claim for regularisation

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative authority must consider a representation concerning service benefits and pass a reasoned and speaking order, particularly where the representation relies on binding or relevant judicial decisions concerning similarly placed employees.

It further relied on the principle of administrative parity and consistency arising from the Tribunal’s order in O.A. No. 387/2019, as confirmed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 13562/2024 and connected matters.

The applicants asserted that their long service and alleged similarity with the employees covered by the earlier regularisation order entitled them to consideration on the same basis.

Since the earlier Tribunal decision had reportedly been upheld by the Delhi High Court and implemented, the Tribunal considered it appropriate for the competent respondents to examine whether the applicants fell within the same category.

However, the Tribunal expressly refrained from adjudicating the merits of the regularisation claim and instead required the respondents to apply the earlier decisions to the applicants’ representations and provide a reasoned determination.

The respondents were directed to consider and dispose of the representations dated 16 March 2026 and 27 July 2026, in light of the orders in O.A. No. 387/2019 and W.P. (C) No. 13562/2024, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.