Respondents must decide the pending representation by a reasoned order within eight weeks, with no coercive action meanwhile.

The three applicants were working as Nursing Officers with the respondents.

They had been selected pursuant to Advertisement No. 4/2023 dated 12 October 2023 and joined in October 2023 after participating in the recruitment process.

They were engaged on consolidated remuneration of ₹37,500 per month and claimed that they had continuously performed duties comparable to those of regular Nursing Officers for eight hours per day.

Relying on the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 4 September 2019 concerning “equal pay for equal work” for casual workers, they sought payment of the minimum of the relevant pay scale along with Dearness Allowance from the date of their initial appointment.

They also sought protection against replacement by another set of contractual employees and continuation in service until regular selection or superannuation.

The applicants had submitted a common representation dated 17 October 2025, which remained undecided.

During the hearing, they confined their request to a direction for disposal of that representation by a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents consented to such a direction.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representation dated 17 October 2025 concerning equal-pay benefits and related service claims by a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether interim protection should be granted against coercive action or replacement of the applicants pending disposal of their representation.

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the merits of the applicants’ claim for equal pay and continuation in service at the admission stage.

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

It considered the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 4 September 2019, which reiterates that where casual workers perform work of the same nature as regular employees, they may be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus Dearness Allowance for eight hours’ work; it also states that casual workers should not be engaged for work of a regular nature.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a pending representation should be considered by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order.

Since the matter was disposed of consensually at the admission stage, no final determination was made on the substantive entitlement to equal pay or continuation in service.

The applicants relied on the DoP&T memorandum to assert that their duties were equivalent to those performed by regular Nursing Officers and that they were consequently entitled to the minimum of the relevant pay scale with Dearness Allowance.

However, the Tribunal did not examine the factual or legal merits of that claim.

In view of the applicants’ limited request and the respondents’ absence of objection, it directed the competent respondents to examine the representation dated 17 October 2025 and pass a reasoned and speaking order within the prescribed period.

To preserve the applicants’ position while the representation remained pending, the Tribunal directed that no coercive action be taken against them until its disposal.

The respondents were directed not to take coercive action against the applicants until disposal of the representation.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had neither examined nor expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicants’ claims for equal pay or continuation in service.

The pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.