Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 4514 of 2025 With Civil Appeal No(s). 4516 of 2025 Civil Appeal No(s). 4515 of 2025 Civil Appeal No(s). 4517 of 2025 Civil Appeal No(s). 4518 of 2025 Civil Appeal No(s). 4519 of 2025 Civil Appeal No(s). 4520 of 2025 Civil Appeal No(s). 4523 of 2025
Decided On : 21-05-2026
(A) Service Law – Regularisation – Work Charged employees/Muster Roll workers – Equals must be treated equally – If persons similarly placed are treated differently without rational basis, it would amount to violation of Article 14 of Constitution – If two sets of employees stand on same footing in terms of date of engagement, nature of duties, length of service and eligibility under a declared policy, State cannot extend benefit to one large group and deny it to smaller group without demonstrating valid distinction – Equality does not allow selective or partial implementation of a policy – Once a policy decision is taken to benefit a defined class, it must be applied uniformly to all who satisfy prescribed conditions – Appellants had been engaged as Work Charged/Muster Roll workers much prior to 1st April, 1993 and had continuously discharged their duties over a prolonged period of time – Their position is, in no manner, distinguishable from those Work Charged/Muster Roll workers whose services were regularized – State, having regularized nearly 30,000 workers under its own policy decision, could not refuse to regularize remaining eligible workers who stood on same footing – Though legitimate expectation does not create vested right, it is firmly rooted in principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness that flows from Article 14 of Constitution. (Paras 54, 60, 63 and 67)
(B) Service Law – Regularisation – Work Charged employees/Muster Roll workers – State cannot rely upon mere form of engagement to deny fair and equitable treatment to employees who have served it for long years – Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier to justify prolonged and continued engagements of a temporary or ad hoc nature, especially where employees have been discharging essential and recurring functions of State – Distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments must be kept in view – Long and continuous service is a relevant consideration – State, as a model employer, is under constitutional obligation to act with fairness, consistency and reasonableness – Practice of retaining employees for decades under deceptively titled designations, while simultaneously extracting regular work integral to administration, has been disapproved consistently – Appellants shall be treated as regularised in service – Appellants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay in regular scale, continuity of service, and all applicable pensionary and post-retiral benefits. (Paras 76, 78 and 79)
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Petition – No adverse finding ought to be recorded against a class of persons without hearing them, more particularly when lis affects monetary rights of group of employees. (Para 95)
Facts of the case:
Instant batch of appeals takes exception to common judgment and order dated 8th June, 2017 passed by Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 45 of 2014, whereby Division Bench of High Court, set aside judgment and order dated 20th December, 2013 passed by Single Judge, thereby reversing direction of regularization and consequential benefits granted in favour of appellants.
Findings of Court:
Members of appellant–association, if they so desire, shall be at liberty to agitate their claims for pensionary and other consequential benefits before State Government. However, this order shall not be treated as conferring any specific right or entitlement on any such employee.
Result : Appeals disposed of with directions.
Key Points: - The State must apply regularization policies uniformly to similarly situated employees and cannot selectively deny benefits due to clerical errors or administrative lapses (!) (!) (!) . - The Cabinet decision of 22 July 2005 regularized about 30,000 workers; the Court held that left-out eligible workers due to inadvertent omissions are entitled to regularization under Article 14, and the State cannot rely on Umadevi to deny them this benefit (!) (!) (!) . - The Court directed identification of eligible appellants, creation of necessary posts (including supernumerary posts) where needed, and entitlement to all consequential benefits including pension, with notional regularization for retirees and to heirs for deceased employees; completion within one year is mandated for the exercise to regularize (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The 2012 Office Memorandum prohibiting further regularization was deemed unlawful in the context of left-out workers who had been promised regularization and undertakings given before the Court; State’s undertakings before the Court create legitimate expectations (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Work Charged and Muster Roll employees constitute a distinct class; observations adverse to one class (Work Charged) could not prejudice pensions/benefits, and their entitlement to pensionary benefits should be determined under applicable rules and prior memoranda; the association’s challenge is limited to this aspect (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment reiterates that the State as a model employer must act fairly, consistently, and rationally; regularization is an executive policy measure, not subject to prior court approvals, but must align with constitutional requirements and assurances given (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial scrutiny of administrative practice ensuring constitutional fairness. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. administrative history and policy regarding work charged and muster roll regularization. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. litigation regarding cut-off dates and the validity of regularization policies. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. conflicting findings of single judge and division bench on regularization legality. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 5. arguments regarding article 14 equality and constitutional constraints of umadevi. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 6. state must treat similarly situated workers equally if a policy exists. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78) |
| 7. formal mandate to regularize eligible class members based on state policy. (Para 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 8. protection of distinct rights of work charged employees despite general judgment. (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99) |
| 9. liberty to pursue individual claims following set-aside of erroneous dependency judgments. (Para 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025; Civil Appeal No. 4516 of 2025; Civil Appeal No. 4515 of 2025; Civil Appeal No. 4517 of 2025 and Civil Appeal No. 4518 of 2025
1. Delay condoned in filing application for setting aside of abatement. Abatement is set aside. Delay condoned in filing application(s) for substitution. Application(s) for substitution is/are allowed. Applications for impleadment are dismissed.
2. In matters concerning long-standing administrative arrangements, particularly where the State and its instrumentalities, over time, continue to utilize the services of certain categories of workers in the discharge of its functions, Courts are often required to examine whether executive action conforms to constitutional standards of fairness and consistency. The exercise of public power cannot be divorced from practical realities created by sustained governmental reliance on such workers. Where governmental authorities derive the benefit of prolonged service and thereafter adopt positions that appear inconsistent with earlier policies or representations, the scrutiny of the Court is directed not merely at the outcome, but at the manner in which discretion has been exercised. The touchstone remains whether the action of the State is reasoned, non-arbitrary and in harmony with the constitutional mandate. It is within this broader constitutional perspective that the present issues fall for consideration.
3. The instant batch of appeals takes exception to common judgment and order dated 8th June, 2017 passed by Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court1 [Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”] in Writ Appeal No. 45 of 2014, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court, set aside the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, thereby reversing the direction of regularization and consequential benefits granted in favour of the appellants.
4. Since these appeals arise out of a common impugned judgment and involve identical questions of law and fact, the same are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
5. Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025 is treated as the lead matter and reference to facts and issues is being made therefrom for the purpose of adjudication of the instant batch of appeals.
Brief Facts:
6. In view of the growing requirement of manpower, including workers and field supervisors, for construction, maintenance of official works, and development of public roads across different subdivisions of the State of Assam, the State Government had been engaging Muster Roll workers since the year 1980. Consequently, a large number of pe
The state cannot selectively deny regularization to long-term irregular employees who satisfy the criteria of an established policy. The equality mandate requires consistent application of policies a....
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
High Courts cannot grant regularization of temporary employees unless they were appointed through a lawful selection process in accordance with constitutional norms.
Long-serving casual employees (25+ years) in perennial roles entitled to regularization despite irregular initial engagement, with parity to similarly regularized peers; CAT has jurisdiction; violate....
The court mandated regularization for longtime temporary employees, emphasizing that states must adhere to constitutional employment principles regarding service continuity after a decade of service.
Long-term employees engaged in continuous service are entitled to regularization and benefits even post-retirement if their claims remain pending during their service, subject to compliance with appl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
