Respondents must decide the regularisation claim through a speaking order without the Tribunal expressing any view on merits.

The applicant claimed that he was engaged as a casual labourer in November 1991 and converted into a daily wager in August 1992.

He asserted that he completed seven years of continuous service by 2000 and was therefore eligible for regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994.

He relied on departmental communications and recommendations supporting his engagement and eligibility, as well as representations submitted in 1998, 1999, 2001 and thereafter seeking adjustment as a Shepherd or regularisation.

The applicant had earlier approached the High Court in SWP No. 698/2003, which directed the respondents to consider his claim on merits and in accordance with the applicable SRO.

After a subsequent round of litigation in SWP No. 2309/2017, the respondents rejected his claim through consideration order dated 12 January 2018, allegedly on the ground that he had neither worked as a daily wager nor completed the requisite seven years of service.

The applicant challenged that order and a subsequent consideration order dated 9 August 2023, seeking regularisation, payment of earned wages and continuation as a daily wager.

During the hearing, however, he agreed that the T.A. could be treated as a representation, and the respondents raised no objection.

1. Whether the applicant’s claim for regularisation and related service benefits under SRO 64 of 1994 was required to be reconsidered in light of his asserted engagement before the ban period and completion of seven years of service.

2. Whether the T.A. should be disposed of by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation and pass a reasoned order on the applicant’s eligibility and entitlement.

The applicant relied on SRO 64 of 1994, which governed the regularisation of eligible daily wagers who had, inter alia, completed the prescribed period of continuous service.

He relied on precedents reported in SLJ 2001 p. 322, SLJ 1999 p. 488 and SLJ 1999 p. 362 concerning protection and regularisation of qualifying daily wagers.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that where both parties consent to consideration of a claim by the competent authority, the matter may be disposed of by directing that authority to examine the claim in accordance with law and pass a speaking order, without the Tribunal expressing an opinion on the merits.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate whether the applicant had in fact completed seven years of qualifying service, whether his engagement preceded the relevant ban period, or whether he satisfied the conditions of SRO 64 of 1994.

Although the applicant challenged the respondents’ earlier rejection as contrary to departmental records and prior court directions, he expressly submitted that the T.A. could be treated as a representation.

The respondents consented to that course.

Accordingly, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to leave the substantive eligibility questions to the competent departmental authorities, who were required to examine the pleadings, documents, merits and applicable law and issue a reasoned decision.

The respondents were directed to treat the T.A. as a representation, consider and decide the applicant’s claim in accordance with law, and pass a speaking order within six weeks from service of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits or otherwise of the claim.

The connected miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of; parties were left to bear their own costs, and interim orders stood vacated.