The Tribunal may treat an Original Application as a representation and direct a reasoned decision without ruling on merits.

The applicant claimed that he had been continuously working as a Junior Administrative Officer (JAO) at AIIMS, Rishikesh since 18 March 2013, against a sanctioned and perennial post, while functioning under the direct supervision and control of the official respondents.

Although his work was allegedly controlled by AIIMS, his wages were paid through successive outsourcing agencies, including Respondent No. 3.

He sought regularisation, minimum of the pay scale attached to the JAO post, consequential benefits, and a declaration that his continued engagement through outsourcing agencies was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

The official respondents opposed the application, contending that the applicant was engaged through an outsourcing agency, that his grievance lay against the contractor, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Registry separately raised an objection under Section 20 of the Act on the ground that no such representation had been made.

1. Whether the Original Application was maintainable in the absence of a prior representation under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?

2. Whether, without deciding the merits or maintainability objections, the Original Application could be treated as a representation for consideration by the competent authority?

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to regularisation, minimum pay-scale benefits, or other consequential reliefs on account of his long-term outsourced engagement and alleged direct supervision by AIIMS?

The Tribunal proceeded under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning applications to the Tribunal, while the respondents relied on Section 14 regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the Registry invoked Section 20, which generally requires exhaustion of available departmental remedies or submission of a representation before an application is entertained.

The applicant relied on the principles concerning regularisation and equal pay reflected in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327, Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99, and State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148; however, the Tribunal expressly refrained from adjudicating the applicability or merits of those authorities.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the applicant’s outsourced engagement created any legal entitlement to regularisation or minimum pay-scale benefits.

It noted the competing submissions concerning the applicant’s direct supervision by AIIMS, payment of wages by the contractor, jurisdiction under Section 14, and the absence of a prior representation under Section 20.

Since the applicant, on instructions, requested that the Original Application itself be treated as a representation, the Tribunal accepted that course in the peculiar facts of the case and dispensed with the Registry’s objection, without prejudice to the parties’ rights.

The Tribunal thereby adopted a procedural remedy that enabled consideration by the competent authority while avoiding any determination on maintainability, the nature of engagement, or substantive entitlement.

The competent authority among the official respondents was directed to consider and decide the applicant’s claims by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within 30 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal expressly stated that it had expressed no opinion on maintainability, the applicant’s employment status, the nature of his outsourced engagement, or his entitlement to regularisation, pay-scale benefits, or consequential reliefs; all rights and contentions were left open.

No order was made as to costs.