The competent authority must decide the pending regularisation representation by a reasoned order within four months.

The six applicants approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking regularisation in the posts in which they had initially been engaged, relying on Bholanath v. State of Jharkhand.

They had submitted a representation dated 8 December 2025, which remained pending.

At the hearing, their counsel requested that Respondent No. 3 be directed to consider that representation, treating the Original Application as part of it.

Although an affidavit of service was filed, none appeared for the respondents.

The Tribunal also considered the applicants’ application to prosecute the matter jointly.

Whether the applicants’ request for regularisation should be directed to the competent authority for consideration of their pending representation, read with the Original Application.

Whether the applicants should be permitted to prosecute the Original Application jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT Procedure Rules, 1987.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an application to the Tribunal concerning a service matter.

Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, was invoked for joint prosecution and the Tribunal allowed the applicants’ request.

The applicants relied on Bholanath v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. in seeking regularisation, but the Tribunal did not determine the precedent’s applicability or lay down a substantive rule on regularisation; it directed the competent authority to consider the applicants’ case and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The applicants narrowed their request at the hearing to consideration of their pending representation, rather than seeking an immediate determination of their entitlement to regularisation.

The Tribunal considered that limited request appropriate and directed Respondent No. 3 or any competent authority to examine the applicants’ case, treating the Original Application as part of the representation.

The direction required verification of the applicants’ case and a reasoned and speaking order, leaving the merits—including the relevance of Bholanath—for the authority to consider.

It disposed of the Original Application by directing Respondent No. 3 or any competent authority to consider the applicants’ case, treating the Original Application as part of their representation, and to issue a reasoned and speaking order with any consequential follow-up action within four months of receiving the order.

No costs were ordered.