Timely disposition of pending representations by administrative bodies is crucial to uphold applicants' rights.

ORDER (ORAL)

By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

The Registry has raised certain objections in the matter on the ground of non-disposal of the pending representation. The Registry is, however, directed to assign a regular number to the Original Application.

M.A. No. 4822/2025 (Joining Together)

The present M.A. has been filed seeking permission for the applicants to pursue the O.A. jointly.

2. For the reasons stated therein, the M.A. is allowed, and the applicants are permitted to pursue the O.A. jointly.

M.A. No. 4823/2025 (Exemption) is allowed subject to just exceptions.

O.A. No. 4302/2025

The present Original Application has been filed seeking the following relief(s):–

“8.1. Direct the Respondents to place relevant record pertaining to the Applicants in the present Original Application;

8.2. Direct the Respondents to consider and regularize the services of the Applicants, from the date of joining of the Applicants by devising a suitable methodology as per the relevant rules in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court;

8.3. Allow the present Original Application along with consequential benefits;

8.4. Grant any such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstance of the present case”

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the representation dated 06.09.2025, submitted by Applicant No. 1, is still pending consideration before the respondents. He relies upon the decision rendered in W.P.(C) 8501/2024, titled Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Anita Kumari, decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to dispose of the aforesaid representation by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed time frame.

2. Issue notice.

3. Ms. Punam Singh, learned counsel, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. She submits that the judgment relied upon by the applicants is sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. She further submits that, as per record, only Applicant No. 1 has preferred a representation, and not the remaining applicants.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants, however, submits at the Bar that each of the applicants has submitted their respective representation before the competent authority.

5. In view of the limited prayer made, and without entering into the merits of the case, the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the applicants by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

6. A copy of the speaking order so passed shall be communicated to the applicants. It is made clear that if the order is passed in favour of the applicants, consequential relief, if any, shall also follow within a further period of forty-five (45) days thereafter.

7. The Original Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, without going into the merits, at the admission stage itself. Pending M.As., if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

8. No order as to costs.