Respondents must consider regularization representations in light of precedents and issue a reasoned, speaking order.

The 25 applicants were working as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) at various monuments and sites under the Archaeological Survey of India, including the Aurangabad and Nagpur Circles.

They claimed to have served the respondents’ organisation for more than ten years and sought regularisation on parity with similarly placed employees who had received regularisation pursuant to the Tribunal’s order dated 6 December 2023 in O.A. No. 387/2019.

The respondents challenged that order before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 13562/2024 & Batch, but the High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision by order dated 24 September 2025; the said decision was thereafter implemented by the respondents.

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

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ representations seeking regularisation in light of the Tribunal’s order in O.A. No. 387/2019 and the Delhi High Court’s affirming judgment.

2. Whether the Tribunal should grant the applicants’ substantive claim for regularisation at the admission stage.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that where an applicant seeks consideration of a pending representation, the competent authority may be directed to examine and dispose of it by a reasoned and speaking order, without the Tribunal itself adjudicating the underlying merits.

The Tribunal also directed consideration in accordance with the precedent established in O.A. No. 387/2019, as affirmed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 13562/2024 & Batch, concerning regularisation of similarly placed ASI employees.

No specific statutory provision was examined or applied, and the Tribunal expressly proceeded without deciding the merits of the regularisation claim.

The applicants asserted that they were similarly placed to employees who had obtained regularisation under the earlier Tribunal and High Court decisions.

However, instead of determining whether each applicant independently satisfied the requirements for regularisation, the Tribunal adopted the limited relief sought by the applicants’ counsel: consideration of the pending representations in light of the earlier judgments.

Since the representations dated 16 March 2026 and 27 July 2026 were stated to be pending, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the respondents to examine them and issue a reasoned decision.

The Tribunal therefore avoided entering into the merits of the applicants’ entitlement to regularisation.

The respondents were directed to consider and dispose of the applicants’ representations dated 16 March 2026 and 27 July 2026, in light of the Tribunal’s order in O.A. No. 387/2019 and the Delhi High Court’s order dated 24 September 2025, 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.