High Courts cannot grant regularization of temporary employees unless they were appointed through a lawful selection process in accordance with constitutional norms.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumder, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General who is also the Standing Counsel for the Finance Department appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5; Ms. M.D. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions upon the Respondent Authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f 22.07.2005; pay arrears of the salary and also make payment of the pension to the petitioner.

3. The brief facts as would appear from the materials on record are that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster-Roll worker in the office of the respondent No. 3 on 01.08.1993. It is the case of a petitioner that the petitioner thereupon rendered his service sincerely without any blemish from any quarter till his retirement on 31.12.2024.

4. It is the further case of petitioner that by virtue of the judgment delivered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Sri Upen Das reported in (2017) 4 GLR 493, the petitioner received the minimum of the pay scale. The pleadings further show that after the retirement of the petitioner on 31.12.2024, he submitted an application on 22.10.2025 requesting the concerned Respondent Authorities that as he had given 32 years of service without any break, w.e.f. 01.08.1993 to 31.12.2024, he be paid the gratuity benefit in terms with Rule 153(2) of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969.

5. The question therefore arises, as to whether, in the present facts, it would be permissible on the part of this Court to grant the reliefs as has been sought for by the petitioner.

6. It is relevant to take note of that on 07.10.2005, an Office Order was issued wherein it was mentioned about creation of Grade-IV posts in the Inland Water Transport Department, and those Muster- Roll workers who have been engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and were still working continuously without any break were regularized w.e.f. 22.07.2005 until further orders subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner, having been appointed on 01.08.1993 was not regularized. However, the petitioner did not challenge the said actions of the respondents then to limit regularization to those Muster-Roll workers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993.

7. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi (3) & Others reported in(2006) 4 SCC 1 categorically held that the High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms with the constitutional scheme. It was further observed that a temporary employee cannot claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment and merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of appointment, he/she would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent merely on the strength of such continuance. Paragraph 43 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under:

“43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violatio