Respondents must decide the employees’ comprehensive representation through a reasoned, speaking order within four weeks.

The applicants, six employees working as Sweepers in the Health and Medical Education Department, claimed that they had been appointed by competent authorities between 1998 and 2008 and regularised in 2008 after rendering several years of service.

They relied on departmental Communication No. DHSK/Estt-II/648-51 dated 22 May 2013, which allegedly clarified that they were not fake appointees but had been wrongly included in a list of fake appointments.

The applicants alleged that their salaries and consequential service benefits had been withheld from 2017 without a proper order, reasons, or opportunity of hearing.

They further claimed parity with employees who had obtained relief in WP(C) Nos. 220/2024 and 798/2024, particularly pursuant to the implementation order dated 10 September 2025.

Representations dated 15 October 2025, 15 February 2026, and 15 June 2026 were allegedly submitted to the respondents, but remained undecided.

During hearing, the applicants limited their request to a direction requiring the respondents to treat the O.A. and prior representations as a comprehensive representation and decide them by a reasoned order.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the O.A., its annexures, and the applicants’ earlier representations as a comprehensive representation concerning salary withholding, continuation in service, regularisation, and extension of benefits granted to similarly situated employees?

Whether the respondents should be required to decide the applicants’ claims by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the applicable law, rules, and governing legal framework?

Whether the Tribunal should directly grant the applicants parity with the employees covered by the judgment in WP(C) No. 220/2024 and the implementation order dated 10 September 2025, along with arrears and consequential service benefits?

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative authority must consider a duly submitted representation and decide it through a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, service rules, and governing legal framework.

It also recognised that entitlement to parity, salary arrears, continuation in service, and consequential benefits must remain subject to the applicants’ eligibility and entitlement under law.

The judgment in WP(C) No. 220/2024, the connected proceedings in WP(C) No. 798/2024, and the implementation order dated 10 September 2025 were relied upon by the applicants as the basis for claiming similar treatment, but the Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits or conclusively determine whether those orders applied to the applicants.

The Tribunal noted the applicants’ allegations that they had long-standing service, had been regularised, had been cleared by the department of being fake appointees, and had been denied salary and parity despite earlier judicial and departmental developments.

However, after the applicants restricted their prayer to consideration of their claims by the respondents, and since the respondents raised no objection to that course, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to examine the legality of the appointments, the withholding of salary, or the applicants’ entitlement to parity on merits.

The appropriate course was therefore to require the competent authorities to examine the entire claim, including the prior representations and supporting documents, and issue a reasoned decision subject to applicable law and eligibility.

The respondents were directed to treat the O.A., its annexures, and the applicants’ earlier representations as a comprehensive representation and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, rules, and legal framework, subject to the applicants’ eligibility and entitlement under law.

The decision was required to be taken within four weeks from service of a certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the O.A.

The connected miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.