Respondents must decide the pending representation by a reasoned order without adjudicating its merits.

The applicant was appointed as an Office Assistant/Data Entry Operator pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2023 dated 6 June 2023, issued for recruitment through a walk-in interview. He joined the respondents in 2023 and was continuously engaged on a consolidated remuneration of ₹25,000 per month.

The applicant asserted that he performed duties similar to those of regular employees for eight hours daily and was therefore entitled to the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus Dearness Allowance under the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 4 September 2019.

He also apprehended replacement by another set of contractual employees.

The applicant had submitted a representation dated 17 October 2025, which remained undisposed of.

He accordingly filed the present application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking equal-pay benefits, protection against replacement by another set of contractual employees, and consequential reliefs.

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

Whether the applicant should be protected from coercive action, including replacement by another set of contractual employees, until disposal of his representation.

Whether the applicant was substantively entitled to equal-pay benefits or any other relief on merits.

The application was instituted under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which enables an aggrieved person to approach the Tribunal concerning service matters.

The Tribunal considered the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 4 September 2019, reiterating the earlier instructions dated 7 June 1988 on equal pay for casual workers.

Under those instructions, where casual workers perform the same work as regular employees, they may be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus Dearness Allowance for eight hours’ work; where the work differs, minimum wages are payable, and casual workers should not be recruited for work of a regular nature.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the applicant’s substantive entitlement or express any opinion on the merits of these claims.

The applicant relied on the DoP&T memorandum and asserted that his contractual duties were equivalent to those performed by regular employees.

However, at the admission stage, the parties agreed that the immediate relief could be confined to consideration of his pending representation.

Since the respondents had not yet passed any decision on the representation dated 17 October 2025, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require a reasoned and speaking decision rather than determine the disputed questions of equal pay, nature of duties, or continuity of contractual engagement.

The respondents had no objection to such a direction.

As an interim protective measure, the Tribunal directed that no coercive action be taken against the applicant until the representation was decided.

Until disposal of the representation, the respondents were directed not to take coercive action against the applicant.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not examined or expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claims for equal pay, protection from replacement, or other consequential reliefs.

The pending miscellaneous application also stood disposed of, with no order as to costs.