Tribunal directed consideration of fresh representations by a reasoned order without adjudicating the merits.

The 24 applicants claimed to be working as casual/temporary workers under the Archaeological Survey of India in and around Chennai, Vellore, Kancheepuram, Thanjavur, Pudukkottai and Puducherry.

They asserted that they had rendered continuous service for periods ranging from 10 to 15 years and were being paid wages of ₹675 per day, without payment for holidays or weekly offs, resulting in payment for only about 20–22 days per month.

They further alleged that, from June 2018, the respondents began paying them through contractors despite the continuing nature of their work.

Relying on the Department of Personnel and Training’s Office Memorandum No. 49014/2/86-Estt.(C) dated 7 June 1988 and the principles stated in Surinder Singh v. Union of India , the applicants sought regularisation of their services and payment of wages equivalent to 1/30th of the applicable monthly salary, together with dearness allowance.

The applicants had submitted representations, but alleged that no effective action had been taken.

Whether the applicants should be permitted to submit fresh, comprehensive individual representations concerning regularisation and payment of wages under the applicable governmental instructions?

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate, at the admission stage, the applicants’ substantive claims for regularisation and 1/30th wages with dearness allowance?

The Tribunal referred to Office Memorandum No. 49014/2/86-Estt.(C) dated 7 June 1988 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, which was relied upon by the applicants in support of their claims concerning the treatment and remuneration of casual workers.

The applicants also relied on the principle stated in Surinder Singh v. Union of India , concerning parity of treatment and wages for employees performing duties of a similar nature.

The procedural approach adopted was to permit a representation to be considered by the competent authority and to require a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The applicants initially sought substantive directions for regularisation and payment of 1/30th wages with dearness allowance, but, at the hearing, limited their immediate request to an opportunity to submit comprehensive individual representations.

In view of that submission and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to defer examination of the merits and require the competent authority to address the applicants’ claims in the first instance.

The Tribunal therefore granted liberty to submit fresh individual representations within 15 days and directed the concerned respondent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months thereafter.

It expressly clarified that it was not entering into the merits of the applicants’ claims at that stage.

The applicants were granted liberty to file fresh comprehensive individual representations before the competent authority within 15 days from receipt of the order.

The competent authority was directed to consider the representations and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within three months thereafter.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of at the admission stage, without any determination on the merits of the claims for regularisation or enhanced wages.