2026 INSC 523 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4514 OF 2025

SUKHENDU BHATTACH ARJEE

AND OTHERS ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

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

2

J U D G M E N T

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

3

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 8

th June, 2017

passed by Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court

1

in Writ Appeal No. 45 of 2014, whereby the Division

Bench of the High Court, set aside the judgment and

order dated 20

th 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

1

Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.

4

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 sub-

divisions of the State of Assam, the State Government

had been engaging Muster Roll workers since the

year 1980. Consequently, a large number of persons,

including the appellants herein were engaged as

Muster Roll workers under various departments of

the Government of Assam.

7. On 23

rd September, 1983 the Government of

Assam took a Cabinet decision to the effect that all

Muster Roll workers, working in different

departments of the State of Assam, who had

completed 15 years of service or more, would be

regularized as Grade-IV employees. The manner in

which the said Cabinet decision was proposed to be

5

implemented, remained unclear, save and except

that the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam,

by communication dated 15

th March, 1984 informed

the General Secretary of the PWD Employees Union

that Muster Roll workers of the Public Works

Department and other Engineering Departments,

who had completed 15 years of continuous service,

were to be regularized with effect from 1

st August,

1984.

8. By the very same communication, it was further

conveyed that Work Charged employees of the

Engineering Departments, who had completed 5

years of continuous service, were to be brought under

the regular establishment. However, admittedly, no

scheme or guidelines were framed laying down a

structured procedure for execution of the Cabinet

decision dated 23

rd September, 1983.

9. The position remained uncertain till 1995, when

the then Chief Secretary addressed a communication

vide Memo No. ABP 176/91/Pt-1/188 dated 20

th

April, 1995

2 to all Commissioners and Secretaries of

the Government of Assam, recording that despite the

2

Hereinafter, referred to as “1995 O.M.”.

6

earlier decision of the State Government to regularize

Work Charged and Muster Roll workers, no

meaningful action had been taken towards such

regularization. The aforesaid communication is

reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL:::PERSONNEL (B)

DISPUR, GUWAHATI

No. ABP. 176/91/Pt. I/188

Dated Dispur, the 20

th

April, 1995

From:- Shri Arunadoy Bhattacharjya, IAS

Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam

To:- All Commissioner and Secretaries/Secretaries

to the Government of Assam

Sub:- REGULARIZATION OF SERVIÇES OF

WORKCHARGED AND MUSTER - ROLL WORKERS

Ref:- This Department’s letter No. ABP 64/90/13,

dated 24-4-1990

Sir,

I am directed to say that for regularization

of services of Work Charged and Muster Roll

Workers state Government have issued

instruction from time to time to all concerned. It

has, however, been brought to the notice of the

state Government by Sodou Asom Karmachari

Parishad that in spite of State Government’s

instruction, no action for regularization of

services of such workers has been taken by the

certain departments besides, it has also been

represented that such workers are also not getting

their wages regularly. It is therefore, reiterated

that all concerned Department for early

regularization of the services of such workers who

7

were engaged in service prior to 01.04.1993 and

also to take steps for payment of their wages

regularly.

Further, while taking steps regularization of the

services of Work-Charged and Muster Roll

Workers, the Department concerned must ensure

with proper justification on evidence that only the

case of these workers who were entertained before

01.04.1993 are considered for regularization in

consultation with Finance Department. It has also

been decided that in case of any violation of the

Government direction of manipulation action will

be taken against the officer concerned for such

violation or manipulation of records

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam

Memo No. ABP 176/91/pt. I/188-A, Dated

Dispur, the 20

th

April, 1995

Copy forwarded to: -

The Finance EC (II) Department with reference to

their letter No. EC (III) 24/92/37, dated 30-5-94.

They are requested to take necessary steps for

payment of wages to Muster Roll and Work Charged

who were appointed before 01.04.1993 regularly.

By order

Sd/-

Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam,

Personnel (B) Department.”

10. Accordingly, all concerned departments were

directed to initiate necessary steps, in consultation

with the Finance Department, for early regularization

8

of Work Charged and Muster Roll workers who had

been engaged prior to 1

st April, 1993.

11. The aforesaid Office Memorandum was followed

by another Office Memorandum dated 11

th October,

1995 whereby strict instructions were issued to the

State Government officials to not engage any further

Work Charged or Muster Roll workers after 1

st April,

1993.

12. A further clarification dated 13

th October, 1995

was issued by the State Government stating that the

1995 O.M. would operate only in respect of such

Work Charged/Muster Roll workers who had not

been discharged or terminated on or before 20

th April,

1995.

13. On the strength of the 1995 O.M., several writ

petitions came to be instituted before the High Court

seeking regularization on the ground that the writ

petitioners therein had been engaged prior to 1

st

April, 1993 and had rendered long years of service.

The High Court vide common order dated 23

rd

September, 1998, while directing regularization of

those engaged prior to 1

st April, 1993 held that the

persons engaged after the said date did not have any

legally enforceable right to claim regularization.

9

14. Subsequent to the 1995 O.M. , the Under

Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel (B)

Department issued a circular dated 29

th August,

1998 reiterating the decision of the Government to

regularize the services of the Muster Roll/Work

Charged/Casual workers and to take immediate

steps for regularization. The said circular is

reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“ GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONN EL:::PERSONNEL (B)

DISPUR, GUWAHATI

No. ABP. 30/98/10

Dated Dispur, the 29

th

August, 1998

From:- Shri G.N. Saikia

Under Secretary to the Government of Assam

Personnel (B) Department

To:- (1) All Commissioner and Secretaries to the

Government of Assam.

(2) All Secretaries to the Government of Assam

(3) Deputy Commissioners

(4) Sub-Divisional Officers

(5) Heads of Department

Sub:- REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES OF WORK-

CHARGED AND MUSTER - ROLL WORKERS AND

RETENTION PERMANENCY OF POSTS/OFFICES

Sir,

I am directed to forward herewith an extract

of minutes of discussion held on 10-7-98 between

Commissioner and Secretary, personnel and

10

Assam state Employees' Federation, Guwahati

and to say that Government in Personnel (B)

Department issued an instruction to all

concerned for regularization of Work Charged

persons and M.R. workers engaged prior to

01.04.1993. But it has been observed that many

of these Administrative Departments as well as

Heads of Departments have not taken steps for

regularization of those work charged persons and

M.R. Workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993. In

terms of the discussion, it is again impressed

upon to all concerned that the work Charged

persons and M.R. Workers who were engaged

prior to 01.04.1993 should be regularized

immediately as per instructions contained in this

Department letter No. ABP. 176/91/pt.1/ 213,

dated 13.10.1995. Action taken thereon may

please be intimated expeditiously. As regards

decision taken at para -8 of the minutes,

necessary steps may be taken by the concerned

Administrative Departments and Heads of

Departments for retention / permanency of posts

/offices expeditiously, in terms of existing

Government instructions in this regard. Action

taken position on this may please be furnished

early.

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

Under Secretary to the Government of Assam

Personnel (B) Department.”

15. The Commissioner and Secretary to the

Government of Assam, Personnel Department issued

another circular dated 3

rd November, 2000 whereby

11

all the Principal Se cretaries, Commissioner,

Secretaries of Government of Assam and all the

Departmental heads were requested to implement the

Government policy on priority basis with reference to

the seniority of the Work Charged and Muster Roll

workers, taking into consideration the length of

continuous engagement for regularization of their

services. The said circular is reproduced hereinbelow

for ready reference:-

“ GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONN EL:::PERSONNEL (B)

DISPUR, GUWAHATI

No. ABP. 30/98/144

Dated Dispur, the 3

rd

November, 2000

From:- Dr. B.K. Gohain, IAS

Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of

Assam, Personnel Department.

To:- (1) All Principal Secretary/Commissioner and

Secretaries, Government of Assam.

(2) All Deputy Commissioner

(3) All Heads of Departments

Sub:- REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES OF WORK-

CHARGED AND MUSTER -ROLL WORKERS

Ref:- This Department’s letter No. ABP. 176/91/pt.

I/188, dated 20.04.1995 and No. ABP.

122/96/143 dated 05.10.1999

12

Sir,

I am directed to say that for regularization

of services of Work Charged persons and Muster

Roll Workers, State Government in personnel

Department have been issuing instructions from

time to time to all concerned, a s above, to

regularizes the Work Charged persons and Muster

Roll Workers who were engaged prior to

01.04.1993. It has come to the notice of the

Government that certain Departments have not

given due attention in implementation the clear

cut Government policy in this regard. Either there

have been no attempt to regularize the existing

work charged persons and Muster Roll workers or

the Junior Level workers at the cost of seniors in

violation of the Government direction. You are,

therefore, requested to implement the

Government policy on priority basis with

reference to the seniority of work Charged persons

and Muster Roll workers taking into consideration

the length of continuous engage ment, while

moving the Finance Department for regularization

of such workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993

subject to clearance of SLEC positively.

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of

Assam (II)

Personnel Department.”

16. In the meantime, in relation to the Transport

Department, a selection process was undertaken for

filling up Grade-III posts, wherein conflicting orders

came to be passed by the High Court with one set

13

directing regularization of ad-hoc/casual workers

appointed prior to 1

st April, 1993, and another set

directing appointment of the selected candidates

strictly as per the merit list. Owing to these

conflicting views, the issue regarding legality and

validity of the 1995 O.M. was referred to a Full Bench

of the High Court in the case of Jitendra Kalita &

Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors

3.

17. While the adjudication in Jitendra Kalita

(supra) was still pending, the State Cabinet on 22

nd

July, 2005 reiterated the decision to regularize the

services of Work Charged and Muster Roll workers

who were engaged prior to 1

st April, 1993 and

pursuant thereto, an order came to be issued by the

competent authority with the concurrence of the

Finance Department for creation of over 30,000 posts

against which such regularizations were proposed to

be effected. The said communication dated 22

nd July,

2005 issued by the State Cabinet is reproduced

hereinbelow for ready reference:

“ GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

FINANCE (EC-II) DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

NO. FEC(II)1/2005/66

3

2006 (2) GLT 654.

14

Dated Dispur, the 22

nd

July, 2005

From: Shri D.N. Saikia, IAS,

Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of

Assam,

Finance Department, Dispur.

To: The Commissioner & Secretary/ Secretary to

the Government of Assam.

(1) Agriculture Department, Dispur.

(2) Animal Husbandry & Veterinary (Veterinary),

Department, Dispur.

(3) Animal Husbandry & Veterinary (Dairy

Development) Department, Dispur.

(4) Water Resources Department, Chandmari,

Guwahati-3.

(5) Transport (IWT) Department, Dispur.

(6) Irrigation Department, Chandmari, Guwahati-

3.

(7) Public Health Engineering Department,

Hengerabari, Guwahati.

(8) Soil Conservation department, Dispur.

(9) Handloom, Textile and Sericulture (Sericulture)

Department, Dispur.

(10) Public Works Department, Dispur

Sub: Regularization of the services of Work

Charged/ Muster Roll Workers of different

Government Departments engaged prior to

01.04.1993- approval thereof

15

Sir,

I am directed to say that the Cabinet in its meeting

held on 22nd July, 2005 has decided to regularize

the services of Work charged/Muster Roll Workers

of different State Government Departments, who

were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and are in

continuous service without interruption/ break

irrespective of their length of services. Consequent

upon the aforesaid decision of the Cabinet, Finance

Department, subject to availability of non-plan

fund under proper head of account during 2005-

06, concur to the creation of 5892 (Five thousand

Eight hundred and Ninety two) numbers of

different Work Charged Grade posts and 25,069

(Twenty-five thousand and sixty nine) numbers of

different Grade-IV posts for the period up to

28.02.2006 with effect from 22.07.2005 as per

detailed particulars furnished by you Department,

for regularization of the services of 5892 (Five

thousand Eight hundred and Ninety two) numbers

of different categories of Work Charged workers

and 25,069 (Twenty-live thousand and sixty nine)

numbers of Muster Roll who were engaged prior to

01.04.1993 and are continuous service without

interruption/ break irrespective of their length

workers respectively, of services, as detailed below.

……..

The services of those workers whose names were

forwarded by the Department but could not be

considered of for regularization are detailed at

Annexure ‘A’.

For the purpose of regularization, the following

guidelines should be strictly adhered to:-

1. For regularization of the services of Work

Charged workers, concerned Administrative

Department will create posts in the same grade that

the respective incumbents have been holding as

work-charged workers prior to their regularization

16

and for regularization of the services of Muster Roll

workers, only the Grade-IV posts (specifying the

name of Grade-IV Posts) will be created.

2. The scale of pay against each post should be

indicated

3. Specifically as per scale of pay prescribed in the

relevant R.O.P. Rules. For regularization of 6 (Six)

numbers of Work Charged workers and 42 (forty

two) nos. of Muster Roll workers in P.W.D. 1 (one)

number of Muster Roll Worker in Water Resources

department and 12 (Twelve) numbers of Muster

Roll Number in Handloom Textile and Sericulture

Sericulture) Department, who had been engaged

prior to 01.04.1993 and had either attained the age

of superannuation or expired after rendering

continuous services, the respective Administrative

Departments will create supernumerary posts in

appropriate grade (in respect of Work Charged

workers) or in Grade-IV (in respect of Must Roll

Workers) for 1 (One) day only immediately receding

the date of superannuation/ death (as the case

may be).

4. In respect of work Charged/ Muster Roll workers

who have already expired, orders regularizing their

services will be issued by the respective Appointing

Authorities on obtaining death certificates from the

competent Authority.

5. The posts are personal to respective Work

Charged/ Muster Roll workers and will be

abolished as soon as the incumbents relinquish the

posts in any manner.

6. The posts will not be filled up by persons other

than those Work Charged/ Muster Roll workers for

whom the posts have been created.

7. There will be no change in the approved list of

Work Charged/ Muster Roll workers. A copy of the

list received from your Department since approved

and duly authenticated by the Finance

Department, is enclosed.

8. Discrepancy if found in the lists of 5892

numbers of Work charged workers and 25069

17

numbers of Muster Roll Workers may be referred to

the respective Control Branch of Finance

Department.

9. The ban on fresh engagement of Work Charged/

Muster Roll workers and workers of similar nature

with effect from 01.04.1993 shall continue. Any

deviation of this shall be dealt with seriously under

the relevant provisions of the Assam Fiscal

Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2005.

10. Before issuing sanction regularizing the

services of Work Charged/ Muster Roll workers on

the strength of this concurrence, the Department

will ensure that services of no Work Charged/

Muster Roll workers engaged on or after

01.04.1993 are regularized.

11. For retention of the posts so created, concerned

Administrative Department will move respective

Control Branch of Finance Department with names

of incumbents every year till relinquishment of

these personal posts by the concerned incumbents.

These posts, in no case, will be retained by the

Department as per provisions of the Delegation of

Financial Power Rules.

12. The concerned Administrative Departments will

issue sanction for creation of the post as approved,

as per following draft model sanctions enclosed.

Draft Model Sanction No. I

(Annexure ‘B’)

Regarding sanction

to the creation of

posts for

regularizing services

of Work Charged/

Muster Roll Workers

who are still

continuing.

Draft Model Sanction No. II

(Annexure ‘C’)

Regarding sanction

to the creation of

supernumerary

posts for retired/

expired Work

18

charged/ Muster

Roll Workers.

13. The concerned appointing authority while

issuing order of appointment for the purpose of

regularization of the services of Work Charged/

Muster Roll workers, as approved, will attach a

copy of sanctioning letter (creating posts) issued by

the concerned Administrative Department in this

regard with the appointment order/ letter and shall

invariably forward copy of the appointment order/

letter to the concerned Treasury Officer along with

others. Also, in the appointment order/ letter, date

of engagement and date of retirement should be

indicated specifically along with others.

I am to request you kindly to take immediate action

for regularizing the services of 5892 (Five thousand

Eight hundred and ninety two) numbers of work

Charged workers and 25,069 (Twenty Five

thousand and sixty nine) numbers of Muster Roll

workers on the strength of above concurrence of

Finance Department.

I am further to add that this regularization process

should be completed as early as possible and not

later than 3 (three) months from 22.07.2005 as per

Decision of the Cabinet.

This issues with the approval of Finance (SIU)

Department vide their U.O. No. FSI/110/05, dated

22.08.2005.

Yours faithfully,

D.N. Saikia

Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of

Assam,

Finance Department

Memo NO. FEC. (II)1/2005/66-А,

Dated Dispur, the 22nd July, 2005”

19

18. During the course of proceedings in Jitendra

Kalita (supra), the Chief Secretary to Government of

Assam filed an affidavit dated 14

th November, 2005

informing the Court about the Cabinet decision dated

22

nd July, 2005.

19. The Full Bench vide order dated 17

th May, 2006

passed in Jitendra Kalita (supra) held that the 1995

O.M. did not reflect a valid policy decision of the State

for regularization of Work Charged and Muster Roll

workers. While the Full Bench did not disturb those

who had already been regularized on humanitarian

considerations, however, it declared that there would

be no further regularization in terms of the 1995 O.M.

20. It is pertinent to note that the Full Bench did

not express any opinion regarding the validity or

implementation of the State Cabinet decision dated

22

nd July, 2005.

21. A subsequent communication dated 22

nd

August, 2005 issued by the Finance (EC -II)

Department and the Office Memorandum dated 31

st

July, 2010 issued by the Pension and Public

Grievances Department would indicate that the State

Government created 5,892 Work Charged grade

posts and 25,069 Grade-IV posts for Muster Roll

20

workers, and thereafter approximately 30,000 Work

Charged and Muster Roll workers were regularized.

22. It needs to be noted that a large number of Work

Charged and Muster Roll workers, though placed at

par to those persons whose services were regularized

pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated 22

nd July,

2005, were left out of the regularization process.

Such exclusion was primarily attributed to clerical

lapses, including errors in the spelling of names

and/or inadvertent omission from the lists of eligible

workers, which led to the filing of a barrage of writ

petitions before the High Court. The core grievance

raised in these writ petitions was that, despite

engagement prior to the cut-off date of 1

st April, 1993

and long and continuous service, in many cases

exceeding twenty-five years, the benefit of

regularization was denied to the employees while it

was extended to other similarly placed workers.

23. One such batch of petitions came to be

considered by the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 1271 of

2006, titled Ramani Deka and Others v. State of

Assam and Other s, wherein the petitioners, who

were engaged as Work Charged/ Muster Roll workers

prior to 1

st April, 1993, sought regularization on the

21

strength of the Cabinet decision dated 22

nd July,

2005, contending that they had been unjustly

excluded despite fulfilling the prescribed criteria.

24. In the course of proceedings in Ramani Deka

(supra), the State Government submitted before the

High Court that on the basis of information collated

from 29 departments, approximately 3,720 Work

Charged, Muster Roll and other similarly placed

workers engaged prior to 1

st April, 1993 were still in

service and were eligible for regularization. It was

further stated that, after due examination, the State

Government would frame a policy for regularization

of services of such workers within a period of three

months. Accepting the stand taken by the State, the

High Court, vide order dated 6

th September, 2010,

directed that consequential action be taken and

completed within the stipulated time frame.

25. In a similar writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 24

of 2007, which pertained to regularization of Muster

Roll workers, the Chief Secretary to the Government

of Assam, during the course of proceedings, filed an

affidavit dated 10

th December, 2010 in the High Court

submitting that the State Government had

formulated a draft policy for regularization of services

22

of Work Charged and Muster Roll workers who had

been engaged prior to 1

st April, 1993 and were left out

from the regularization process earlier, by appointing

them against posts to be created purely personal to

them. The affidavit further stated that similar

enabling provisions had been incorporated in the

draft policy to extend the benefit of regularization to

other categories of temporary workers (other than

Work Charged/Muster Roll) who had also been

engaged prior to 1

st April, 1993.

26. Parallelly, in another writ petition being W.P. (C)

(Taken up) No. 24 of 2007, wherein the High Court

was examining issues relating to prison conditions in

the State of Assam, including adequacy of staffing

and allied matters, a Division Bench, vide order dated

30

th July, 2010, directed the State Government to

frame a policy for regularization of casual workers in

terms of the Full Bench decision in Jitendra Kalita

(supra). In the aforesaid proceedings, learned

Additional Advocate General appearing for the State

of Assam submitted that such a policy would be

framed within eight weeks. Subsequently, on 1

st

November, 2010, the learned Additional Advocate

General submitted that an undertaking had already

23

been given by the State in the matter of Ramani

Deka (supra) to frame a policy within three months.

In view of the said undertaking, the Division Bench

observed that no further steps were required to be

taken pursuant to the order dated 30

th July, 2010.

27. When Ramani Deka (supra) was taken up for

hearing on 14

th December, 2011, it was submitted on

behalf of the Finance Department that the matter of

regularization was under active consideration in

coordination with the Departments of Health, Public

Works, Directorate of Zoology and Mining, Water

Resources and others, and that the outcome of such

deliberations was likely to be favorable to the writ

petitioners.

28. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid

undertakings given before the High Court, the State

thereafter filed a miscellaneous application

4 in W.P.

(C) (Taken up) No. 24 of 2007 seeking leave of the

High Court to implement its policy for regularization,

contending that the judgment of th is Court in

Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi

5 had

created a legal embargo on such regularization. A

4

M.C. No. 597/2012

5

(2006) 4 SCC 1

24

Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated

27

th March, 2012, declined to grant the said prayer,

observing that if the State was unable to regularize

casual workers in accordance with the law laid down

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the High Court could

not issue directions to adopt a policy which might be

in violation of the said judgment.

29. Immediately following the order dated 27

th

March, 2012 the Finance (EC-II) Department,

Government of Assam issued Office Memorandum

dated 16

th June, 2012

6, whereby it was decided that

no further regularization of services of Work Charged,

Muster Roll or similarly placed workers would be

undertaken by the State Government, even if such

workers had been engaged prior to 1

st April, 1993 and

had rendered continuous service without break. It

was further decided that no regularization would be

granted by creating ex post facto supernumerary

posts in respect of those Work Charged or Muster Roll

workers who had been engaged prior to 1

st April,

1993 but had either died or attained the age of

6

Hereinafter referred to as “2012 O.M.”

25

superannuation after rendering continuous and

uninterrupted service.

30. Several writ petitions, including those filed by

the appellants, assailing the validity of the 2012 O.M.

came up for consideration before the learned Single

Judge.

31. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated

20

th December, 2013 allowed the writ petitions and

thereby quashed the 2012 O.M. and resultantly

directed regularization along with consequential

benefits to the eligible workers whose engagement

was prior to 1

st April, 1993. Some of the key

observations made by learned Single Judge while

allowing the writ petitions are summarized

hereinbelow:-

i. Work-charged and Muster Roll work ers

constitute a recognised and permissible

mode of engagement under the Assam

Financial Rules and the PWD Code. Such

engagement, though not against sanctioned

posts and not intended to be indefinite,

cannot ipso facto be treated as illegal, void,

or non-est. It would be an over -

simplification to contend that all such

26

engagements were without any authority of

law, and therefore cannot be excluded from

consideration of regularization merely on

the ground that they were outside the

regular stream of employment.

ii. The Constitution Bench judgment in

Umadevi (supra) bars Courts, post 10

th

April, 2006 (date of judgment in Umadevi),

from issuing directions for regularization of

temporary, ad-hoc, daily-wage or casual

workers, save and except the limited

exception carved out in paragraph 53. As

explained in State of Karnataka &

Others v. M.L. Kesari & Others

7,

employees who had completed ten years of

continuous service as on 10

th April, 2006

without the protection of interim Court

orders and who possessed the requisite

qualifications, remain entitled to

consideration under a one -time

regularization exercise.

7

(2010) 9 SCC 247.

27

iii. Prior to the pronouncement in Umadevi

(supra), the State of Assam had taken a

conscious Cabinet policy decision on 22

nd

July, 2005 to regularize Work Charged and

Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 1

st

April, 1993. Acting upon this decision,

approximately 30,000 similarly situated

workers were regularized by creation of

equivalent Grade-IV posts. The said Cabinet

decision has never been challenged and was

not interdicted or nullified by Umadevi

(supra).

iv. The writ petitioners were admittedly covered

by the Cabinet decision dated 22

nd July,

2005 but were excluded from regularization

due to oversight, inadvertence, or clerical

lapses on the part of the State. Such

workers cannot be made to suffer for the

State’s failure to conduct the regularization

exercise in a full, fair, and comprehensive

manner, particularly when identically

placed workers were granted the benefit.

v. Through affidavits and statements made by

the Chief Secretary and other senior

28

officers, the State unequivocally undertook

before the Court to regularize the services of

the left-out eligible workers. Judicial

directions were issued on the basis of such

undertakings. Thus, the State was bound

by these commitments and could not

subsequently resile from its position by

taking shelter of Umadevi (supra) or by

issuing the 2012 O.M.

vi. Umadevi (supra) does not denude the

executive of its constitutional power to

frame and implement a policy decision for

regularization. The State’s contention that

Court’s permission was required to

implement a Cabinet decision is legally

misconceived and amounted to an

unwarranted surrender of executive

authority.

vii. Neither Umadevi (supra) nor Jitendra

Kalita (supra) bars the State from granting

pension or family pension to long-serving

Work Charged/Muster Roll workers who

retired or died in harness. The long -

standing practice of creating a

29

supernumerary post personal to the

incumbent even for one day, solely to confer

pensionary and terminal benefits, is

statutorily supported by the proviso to Rule

31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules,

1969. Pension being a valuable right and a

facet of socio-economic justice in a welfare

State, denial of such benefit after decades of

continuous service is arbitrary, unjust, and

constitutionally impermissible.

32. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed

the State to take follow-up steps for regularization of

eligible Work Charged and Muster Roll workers in

terms of the Cabinet decision dated 22

nd July, 2005

and the earlier undertakings given to the Court.

33. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20

th

December, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge,

the State of Assam preferred an intra Court appeal

being Writ Appeal No. 45 of 2014, before the Division

Bench of the High Court.

34. The Division Bench vide impugned judgment

dated 8

th June, 2017 allowed the writ appeal and set

aside the order of the learned Single Judge. Some of

30

the key observations made by the Division Bench in

the impugned judgment are summarized

hereinbelow:-

i. None of the writ petitioners were appointed

against, or were working on, duly

sanctioned vacant posts. Their engagement

as Muster Roll, Work Charged or Casual

workers was de hors the regular cadre. In

view of Umadevi (supra), regularization is

impermissible where employees are not

working against sanctioned posts, except

within the narrow exception.

ii. Exception under paragraph 53 of Umadevi

(supra), as explained in M.L. Kesari (supra)

applies only to irregular and not illegal

appointments of duly qualified persons

working against sanctioned posts for more

than ten years without any Court’s

protection. Since the writ petitioners were

never appointed against sanctioned posts,

they did not satisfy the threshold condition

for invoking the one-time regularization

exception.

31

iii. Although the State had taken a Cabinet

decision on 22

nd July, 2005 and regularized

about 30,000 similarly placed workers, post

10

th, April 2006 [date of judgment in

Umadevi (supra)], the State could not

continue or extend regulari zation by

creating posts, as that would amount to

bypassing the constitutional requirement of

public employment. The Cabinet decision

could not be enforced contrary to binding

constitutional law.

35. The aforesaid judgment and order dated 8

th

June, 2017 passed by the Division Bench is subject

matter of challenge in the present batch of appeals.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants

36. Shri Manish Goswami and Ms. Anitha Shenoy,

learned senior counsel representing the appellants

strenuously contended that the action of the State in

denying regularization to the appellants, despite

extending identical benefit to approximately 30,000

similarly placed Work Charged and Muster Roll

workers, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of

Article 14 of the Constitution. It was contended that

32

admittedly the appellants were engaged prior to 1

st

April, 1993 and had rendered long and continuous

service extending over decades, and were identically

placed as those nearly 30,000 workers whose

services were regularized pursuant to the Cabinet

decision dated 22

nd July, 2005. Learned senior

counsel urged that the appellants, for no fault of

theirs, ought not to be made to suffer for clerical

errors, inadvertent omissions, administrative lapses

or apathy on the part of the State.

37. Shri Goswami further submitted that the State,

having given a clear and unequivocal undertaking

before the High Court, could not thereafter be

permitted to resile from the same. In the proceedings

in Ramani Deka (supra) and connected matters,

categorical statements were made on behalf of the

State, through the Chief Secretary, that a policy for

regularization of eligible Muster Roll and Work

Charged workers engaged prior to 1

st April, 1993 was

under active consideration and would be

implemented within a stipulated time frame. Acting

on such representations, the High Court issued

directions calling for consequential action. It was

urged that an undertaking given to a constitutional

33

Court is a binding commitment, and the State cannot

subsequently take a contrary stand by citing

inapplicable legal dispositions which were pre-

existing at the time when the undertaking was

furnished. It was further urged that the issuance of

the 2012 O.M., seeking to completely rule out any

further regularization, was arbitrary and legally

unsustainable, as it marked a clear departure from

the stand earlier taken by the State before the High

Court and had the effect of undermining the very

basis on which the judicial directions had been

passed. To this extent, the State’s action is hit by the

principle of approbate and reprobate.

38. Learned senior counsel submitted that the

judgment in Umadevi (supra) does not impose an

absolute embargo on regularization in all cases.

Reliance was placed on paragraph 53 of Umadevi

(supra) to contend that an exception has been

expressly carved out in respect of employees who

have rendered long years of continuous service. It

was further submitted that the appellants do not

seek judicial mandate for regularization contrary to

the constitutional scheme, but only seek

implementation of an existing executive policy,

34

namely the Cabinet decision dated 22

nd July, 2005,

which was taken prior to the decision in Umadevi

(supra) and was in fact acted upon by the State in

respect of a substantial section of the workforce. The

prayer made by the appellants is imbibed in the letter

and spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution and the

stand of the State Government in opposing such

prayer is arbitrary and totally divergent to its own

stance in the earlier litigation pertaining to similarly

placed employees.

39. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the

judgment of M.L. Kesari (supra), to submit that the

“one-time measure” contemplated in Umadevi

(supra) cannot be treated as exhausted merely

because the State undertook a partial or incomplete

exercise. It was contended that M.L. Kesari (supra)

clearly held that employees who were otherwise

entitled to consideration but were left out due to

oversight or administrative reasons do not lose their

right to be considered for regularization. According to

the learned senior counsel, the State itself had

admitted before the High Court that several of eligible

workers engaged prior to 1

st April, 1993 were left out

of the regularization exercise owing to clerical errors

35

in the spelling of names and therefore denial of

consideration to the appellants defeats the very

object underlying paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra).

40. Further reliance was placed by learned senior

counsel on recent judgments of this Court in Jaggo

v. Union of India

8, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam

9 and

Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

10, to

contend that the State cannot be permitted to take

advantage of its own inaction or failure. It was urged

that where workers have been allowed to continue in

service for long years and the State has consistently

utilized their labour, it would be inequitable and

unjust to deny them the benefit of regularization on

hyper technical or procedural grounds. It was thus,

submitted that long and continuous service under

the State is a relevant consideration which cannot be

brushed aside mechanically.

41. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned

senior counsel prayed that the instant appeals

deserve to be allowed, the impugned judgment and

order dated 8

th June, 2017 passed by the Division

8

2024 SCC Online SC 3826.

9

2025 SCC Online SC 221.

10

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735.

36

Bench be set aside, and the appellants be granted the

benefit of regularization in terms of the Cabinet

decision dated 22

nd July, 2005, along with all

consequential benefits.

Submissions on behalf of the respondents

42. Per contra , Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior

counsel appearing for respondent No.1-State of

Assam vehemently and fervently opposed the

submissions advanced by the counsel for the

appellants and supported the impugned judgment

dated 8

th June, 2017 passed by the Division Bench to

the hilt.

43. Shri Gupta, contended that the appellants,

admittedly engaged as Muster Roll/Work

Charged/Casual workers, were never appointed

against duly sanctioned posts nor were they

employed through any selection process recognized

by law, and therefore do not acquire any enforceable

right to seek regularization. Reliance placed by the

appellants on the Cabinet decision dated 22

nd July,

2005 was branded to be misconceived, as executive

instructions or Cabinet decisions cannot override the

constitutional scheme under Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution, particularly after the authoritative

37

pronouncement of the Constitution Bench in

Umadevi (supra).

44. It was submitted that the Constitution Bench in

Umadevi (supra) has categorically held that Courts

cannot issue directions for regulari zation of

employees appointed de hors sanctioned posts or

without following the prescribed recruitment

procedure, and that any such direction would

amount to perpetuating illegality and defeating

equality of opportunity in public employment.

45. Learned senior counsel, emphasized that the

exception carved out in paragraph 53 of Umadevi

(supra) is a narrowly tailored one, applicable only to

irregular (and not illegal) appointments of duly

qualified persons working against sanctioned vacant

posts for ten years or more without the protection of

Court orders. According to the State, the appellants’

engagement squarely falls in the category of illegal

appointments, as they were neither appointed

against sanctioned posts nor through any recognized

process, and hence the exception is wholly

inapplicable.

46. Learned senior counsel further submitted that

the reliance placed on M.L. Kesari (supra) is also

38

misplaced. It was contended that M.L. Kesari (supra)

does not dilute or expand the ratio of Umadevi

(supra), but merely clarifies the manner of

implementation of paragraph 53 thereof. The benefit

of M.L. Kesari (supra) can accrue only to those

workers who otherwise satisfy the foundational

requirements laid down in Umadevi (supra), namely

engagement against sanctioned posts and possession

of requisite qualifications. In the absence of these

essential preconditions, the appellants cannot claim

consideration for regularization under the guise of a

continuing one-time exercise.

47. On the plea of discrimination and violation of

Article 14 of the Constitution, Shri Gupta submitted

that the principle of equality is a positive concept and

cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. It was

submitted that the fact that some similarly placed

workers may have been regularized in the past does

not confer a legal right on others to claim parity,

particularly when such past regularizations cannot

be continued in view of the binding dictum of

Umadevi (supra).

48. With respect to the appellants’ reliance on

undertakings given by the State before the High

39

Court, learned senior counsel submitted that no

undertaking contrary to law can bind the State. Any

statement or assurance made before the Court must

necessarily be read subject to constitutional

limitations and binding judicial precedents. Once

Umadevi (supra) had laid down an express

prohibition against regularization of employees

appointed de hors sanctioned posts, the State was

legally precluded from implementing any policy or

undertaking that would run contrary thereto. The

filing of the Miscellaneous Application in 2012 and

the subsequent issuance of the 2012 O.M. were thus

defended as bona fide steps taken by the State to

bring its actions in conformity with constitutional

mandates, rather than acts of arbitrariness.

49. Learned senior counsel submitted that the

judgments of this Court in Jaggo (supra), Shripal

(supra) and Dharam Singh (supra), relied by the

counsel for the appellants are distinguishable as

those decisions were rendered in materially different

factual and legal scenarios, where appointments were

either traceable to statutory provisions, sanctioned

posts, or identifiable lapses on the part of the State

which were absent in the present case. It was further

40

submitted that none of those judgments dilute the

binding force of Umadevi (supra) or permit

regularization of employees appointed illegally and de

hors the constitutional scheme.

50. Shri Gupta urged that Courts cannot direct the

creation of posts, including limited tenure

supernumerary posts or the formulation of

regularization schemes, as such matters fall squarely

within the executive domain and involve policy

choices with significant financial and administrative

implications. It was further urged that any direction

to create posts for the purpose of accommodating the

appellants would amount to judicial encroachment

into executive functions.

51. Learned senior counsel contended that granting

regularization to the appellants would entail a

serious and unforeseen financial burden on the State

exchequer and, if extended beyond the present

appellants, would open the floodgates for similar

claims by hundreds of others, thereby unsettling the

entire framework of public employment in the State.

52. Shri Gupta fervently urged that the instant

appeals do not merit acceptance; the impugned

judgment dated 8

th June, 2017 be affirmed; and no

41

directions for regularization or consequential benefits

be issued in favour of the appellants.

Discussion

53. We have heard and considered the submissions

advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have

gone through the impugned judgment and the

material placed on record.

54. There is no dispute that the appellants had been

engaged as Work Charged/Muster Roll workers

much prior to 1

st 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 pursuant to the

Cabinet decision dated 22

nd July, 2005. The

appellants were left out from the exercise of

regularization owing to inadvertent mistakes, clerical

errors and administrative discrepancies on the part

of the State. Hence, the appellants cannot be faulted

for denial of the benefits flowing from the aforesaid

Cabinet decision under which nearly 30,000 similarly

situated workers were regularized. The core question,

therefore, which arises for consideration is whether,

in the aforesaid circumstances, the appellants can be

42

denied the benefit of regularization solely on the

ground that they were not appointed against

sanctioned posts and that the decision in Umadevi

(supra) prohibits such regularization.

55. The key reason assigned by the Division Bench

in overturning the judgment of the learned Single

Judge was that the employees were not appointed

against duly sanctioned vacant posts and, therefore,

did not satisfy the requirements of the exception

carved out in paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra). The

Division Bench held that regularization is permissible

only in cases of irregular (and not illegal)

appointments of duly qualified persons working

against sanctioned vacant posts for ten years or more

without the protection of Court orders. Since,

according to the State, none of the respondents

therein were appointed against sanctioned posts, the

benefit of the one-time measure contemplated in

Umadevi (supra), and explained in M.L. Kesari

(supra), was held to be inapplicable to them.

56. Paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra) would be

relevant for consideration of the lis and the same is

reproduced hereinbelow:-

43

“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be

cases where irregular appointments (not illegal

appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa

(supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N.

Nagarajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15

above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned

vacant posts might have been made and the

employees have continued to work for ten years or

more but without the intervention of orders of

Courts or of tribunals. The question of

regularization of the services of such employees

may have to be considered on merits in the light of

the principles settled by this Court in the cases

above referred to and in the light of this judgment.

In that context, the Union of India, the State

Governments, and their instrumentalities

should take steps to regularize as a one time

measure, the services of such irregularly

appointed, who have worked for ten years or

more in duly sanctioned posts but not under

cover of orders of the Courts or of tribunals and

should further ensure that regular recruitments

are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned

posts that require to be filled up, in cases where

temporary employees or daily wagers are being

now employed. The process must be set in motion

within six months from this date. We also clarify

that regularization, if any already made, but not

subjudice, need not be reopened based on this

judgment, but there should be no further

bypassing of the constitutional requirement and

regularizing or making permanent, those not duly

appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”

(Emphasis supplied)

57. The one-time exception as carved out in

paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra) was further

elaborated and explained in M.L. Kesari (supra)

wherein this Court observed as follows: -

44

“9. The term ‘one-time measure’ has to be

understood in its proper perspective. This

would normally mean that after the decision in

Umadevi, each department or each

instrumentality should undertake a one -time

exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-

wage or ad hoc employees who have been

working for more than ten years without the

intervention of Courts and tribunals and subject

them to a process verification as to whether

they are working against vacant posts and

possess the requisite qualification for the post

and if so, regularize their services.

10. At the end of six months from the date of

decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-

wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending

before Courts. Consequently, several departments

and instrumentalities did not commence the one-

time regularization process. On the other hand,

some Government departments or

instrumentalities undertook the one -time

exercise excluding several employees from

consideration either on the ground that their

cases were pending in Courts or due to sheer

oversight. In such circum stances, the

employees who were entitled to be considered

in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi,

will not lose their right to be considered for

regularization, merely because the one -time

exercise was completed without considering

their cases, or because the six month period

mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired.

The one-time exercise should consider all daily-

wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in

10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006

without availing the protection of any interim

orders of Courts or tribunals. If any employer

had held the one-time exercise in terms of para

53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases

of some employees who were entitled to the

benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer

45

concerned should consider their cases also, as a

continuation of the one-time exercise. The one

time exercise will be concluded only when all

the employees who are entitled to be considered

in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so

considered.

11. The object behind the said direction in para 53

of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those

who have put in more than ten years of continuous

service without the protection of any interim orders

of Courts or tribunals, before the date of decision

in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for

regularization in view of their long service. Second

is to ensure that the

departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate

the practice of employing persons on daily -

wage/ad-hoc/casual for long periods and then

periodically regularize them on the ground that

they have served for more than ten years, thereby

defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions

relating to recruitment and appointment. The true

effect of the direction is that all persons who

have worked for more than ten years as on

10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi)

without the protection of any interim order of

any Court or tribunal, in vacant posts,

possessing the requisite qualification, are

entitled to be considered for regularization. The

fact that the employer has not undertaken such

exercise of regularization within six months of

the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise

was undertaken only in regard to a limited few,

will not disentitle such employees, the right to

be considered for regularization in terms of the

above directions in Umadevi as a one-time

measure.”

(Emphasis supplied)

58. What can be deduced from paragraph 53 of

Umadevi (supra), as clarified in M.L. Kesari (supra),

46

is that the Union of India and the State Governments

were directed to undertake a one-time exercise to

regularize employees who had worked for ten years

or more in duly sanctioned posts, without the

protection of Court or tribunal orders. This direction

was to be implemented after the decision in Umadevi

(supra), i.e., after 10

th April, 2006. The exception

carved out in paragraph 53 was therefore intended to

operate prospectively and within the framework laid

down therein.

59. In our considered view, the reliance placed by

the Division Bench on Umadevi (supra) and M.L.

Kesari (supra) was misplaced in the facts of the

present case. Paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra)

carved out a limited exception for those employees

who had worked for more than ten years in duly

sanctioned posts without the protection of Court

orders. However, the appellants were not seeking

regularization on the basis of that one -time

exception. Their claim is rooted in the Cabinet

decision dated 22

nd July, 2005, by which the State

consciously decided to regularize the services of Work

Charged and Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 1

st

April, 1993, and pursuant to which nearly 30,000

47

similarly situated employees were in fact regularized

by creation of posts. The appellants claimed parity

with that very class and sought equal treatment

under Article 14 of the Constitution. The issue,

therefore, is not one of invoking the limited exception

carved out in Umadevi (supra), but of ensuring that

employees who stand on the same footing are treated

alike.

60. It is a settled principle that equals must be

treated equally, and if persons similarly placed are

treated differently without a rational basis, it would

amount to a violation of Article 14 of the

Constitution

11. If two sets of employees stand on the

same footing in terms of date of engagement, nature

of duties, length of service and eligibility under a

declared policy, the State cannot extend a benefit to

one large group and deny it to the smaller group

without demonstrating a 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 the prescribed conditions.

11

Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association v. National Textile Corporation Ltd.,

(2022) 17 SCC 797.

48

61. In the present case, the State itself framed a

policy in 2005 to regularize Work Charged and

Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 1

st April, 1993.

Pursuant to the aforesaid policy decision ,

approximately 30,000 workers were regularized. The

appellants belong to that very category. They were

engaged prior to the cut-off date and have rendered

long and continuous service in the same manner as

those who were regularized. There is no

distinguishing feature shown which separates them

from the beneficiaries of the 2005 decision. Once the

State chose to regularize such a large body of workers

forming one identifiable class, it was under a

constitutional obligation to treat all eligible members

of that class alike. The remaining workers who were

left out, though otherwise eligible, cannot be

excluded and denied the same benefit. It is crucial to

note that the exclusion of the appellants from being

granted the benefit of the 2005 decision is not

attributable to the appellants but is rather predicated

in the actions of the State machinery which, on

account of inadvertent errors or clerical mistakes, did

not include the appellants in the list of beneficiary

covered by the said government decision.

49

62. Recently, in Pawan Kumar and Others v.

Union of India and Others

12 this Court considered

a similar situation wherein certain employees had

been regularized but others, though similarly placed,

were left out. This Court held that such differential

treatment was discriminatory and accordingly

granted the same relief to the excluded employees.

63. Once the State confers a benefit upon a

particular class, it cannot arbitrarily deny the same

benefit to others who are identically situated.

Applying the principle in the present case, the State,

having regularized nearly 30,000 workers under its

own policy decision, could not refuse to regularize the

remaining eligible workers who stood on the same

footing. To do so amounts to treating equals

unequally, which is impermissible under Article 14 of

the Constitution.

64. The present appeals could have been allowed on

the basis of discussion made hereinabove, as the

unequal and arbitrary treatment meted out to the

appellants is apparent on the face of the record.

However, the facts and circumstances of the present

12

2026 INSC 156.

50

case necessitate certain observations regarding the

manner in which the State has handled the issue of

regularization. The way in which assurances were

extended, policies were formulated and partially

implemented, and thereafter altered, warrants closer

scrutiny so as to ensure adherence to the standards

of fairness and accountability expected of the State

and its instrumentalities.

65. It is not in dispute that nearly 30,000 workers

were regularized pursuant to the Cabinet decision

dated 22

nd July, 2005. However, as noted above, due

to administrative lapses and clerical omissions on the

part of the State, several eligible workers, including

the appellants, were left out of the exercise. This led

to the filing of multiple writ petitions before the High

Court. In those proceedings, particularly in Ramani

Deka (supra) and connected matters, the State,

through affidavits sworn by the Chief Secretary and

other senior officers, expressly acknowledged that a

substantial number of workers engaged prior to 1

st

April, 1993 had been left out in the exercise of

regularization. The Court was informed that the

Government was actively considering their cases and

51

that an appropriate policy would be framed within a

stipulated period, with the outcome likely to be in

favour of such workers. Acting upon these categorical

representations, the High Court passed an order

requiring the State to take consequential steps.

66. In this backdrop, the subsequent filing of a

Miscellaneous Application seeking nod from the High

Court to implement the very policy under

consideration, on the ground that the law laid down

in Umadevi (supra) created a legal embargo on such

regularization, appears wholly unwarranted. It is not

as though the State was unaware of the decision in

Umadevi (supra) at the time it furnished

undertakings before the High Court. The judgment in

Umadevi (supra) had already been delivered in April

2006. The undertakings given by the State before the

High Court, acknowledging the existence of a large

number of left-out workers and committing to frame

a policy for their regularization, were furnished much

thereafter. This clearly indicates that the State was

fully conscious of the decision in Umadevi (supra)

and its implications at the time it made those

representations. If the State genuinely apprehended

52

any legal impediment arising from Umadevi (supra),

it ought to have raised such concerns at the first

instance. Instead, it continued to assure the Court

that a policy for regularization of left-out workers was

under active consideration. It was only in 2012 that

the State sought leave of the Court, citing Umadevi

(supra) as a hurdle. The 2012 O.M. appears to have

been designed in a manner that effectively defeats

and dilutes the very object and purpose of the

Cabinet decision dated 22

nd July, 2005. Once the

Cabinet had taken a considered decision and acted

upon it for a large number of employees , it was

incumbent upon the State to act in furtherance

thereof fully, and not to introduce measures that

undermine or circumvent it. The State which is

expected to act as a model employer cannot be

permitted to resile from, or seek shelter against its

own decisions through subsequent executive

decisions. To allow such a course would be contrary

to principles of administrative fairness, consistency,

and good governance.

67. The conduct of the State must also be examined

in light of its status as a model employer. The State

53

is under a higher constitutional obligation to ensure

that its actions are just, reasonable and non -

arbitrary. Recently, this Court in Bhola Nath v.

State of Jharkhand and Others

13 reiterated that

the State, as a model employer, bears a heightened

constitutional obligation in the discharge of its

functions. It must act with probity, fairness and

candour, and cannot cloud the disputes involving its

employees under narrow technical grounds divorced

from their broader constitutional context. A model

employer is expected to uphold the dignity of its

employees more so who are at the lowest pedestal of

the hierarchy and to avoid exploiting their

vulnerability or precarious position. This obligation

flows directly from the Constitution and is not

discretionary. Constantly giving undertakings before

a constitutional Court and thereafter resiling from

them does not comport with the standards expected

of a model employer. An undertaking recorded by a

Court is not a casual statement, but is a solemn

representation on the basis of which judicial orders

are passed. The State cannot approbate and

13

2026 INSC 99.

54

reprobate. It cannot, on the one hand, secure time

and indulgence from the Court on the assurance that

a policy will be implemented and, on the other, avoid

implementation by citing precedents that were

already in existence at the time the undertakings

were furnished.

68. The repeated undertakings given by the State

before the High Court, coupled with the earlier

implementation of the Cabinet decision in favour of

nearly 30,000 similarly situated workers, clearly gave

rise to a legitimate expectation in the minds of the

appellants who were deprived of the benefits of the

policy. In the maze of administrative deficiencies,

they were entitled to expect that the policy decision

would be implemented in a fair, complete and non-

discriminatory manner, and that their cases would

also be considered as part of the same exercise.

Though legitimate expectation does not create a

vested right, it is firmly rooted in the principles of

fairness and non-arbitrariness that flows from Article

14 of the Constitution.

69. A three-judge bench of this Court in National

Buildings Construction Corporation v. S.

55

Raghunathan

14 explained the doctrine of legitimate

expectation in the following terms:-

“The doctrine of "legitimate expectation" has its

genesis in the field of administrative law. The

Government and its departments, in

administering the affairs of the country, are

expected to honour their statements of policy

or intention and treat the citizens with full

personal consideration without any iota of

abuse of discretion. The policy stat ements

cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied

selectively. Unfairness in the form of

unreasonableness is akin to violation of natural

justice. It was in this context that the doctrine

of "legitimate expectation" was evolved which

has today become a source of substantive as

well as procedural rights. But claims based on

"legitimate expectation" have been held to require

reliance on representations and resulting

detriment to the claimant in the same way as

claims based on promissory estoppel.”

(Emphasis supplied)

70. The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision

applies to the present case as well. The State’s own

policy decision and subsequent undertakings before

the High Court constituted clear representations that

the cases of the left-out workers would be duly

considered. The State could not thereafter retract

14

(1998) 7 SCC 66

56

from its earlier position in a selective or inconsistent

manner.

71. Even otherwise, as correctly observed by the

learned Single Judge, there was no requirement for

the State to seek permission of the Court to

implement its own policy decision. The Full Bench in

Jitendra Kalita (supra) had itself observed that any

solution to the issue of regularization must be

undertaken by the State as a policy measure.

Regularization, where permissible in law, is an

executive function. It falls within the domain of policy

and administration. Courts do not grant prior

approval to executive decisions. The role of the Court

is confined to judicial review, that is, to examine

whether a policy or action is constitutionally valid,

fair and reasonable. It is not for the Court to

authorise the executive to exercise powers which

already vest in it.

72. We find merit in the observation of the learned

Single Judge that seeking permission in the manner

done by the State amounted, in effect, to a surrender

of its executive authority. The executive cannot

abdicate its responsibility by placing the burden

57

upon the Court to approve or disapprove the

implementation of its own policy. Once a Cabinet

decision had been taken and implemented in major

proportions, and once undertakings had been given

before a constitutional Court, the State was expected

to act in furtherance of its intent expressly declared

in the policy, subject of course to constitutional

confines. The course adopted by the State, in the

facts of the present case, was neither necessary nor

justified.

73. As regards the contention of Shri Gupta that

after the decision in Umadevi (supra) no

regularization can be effected in respect of employees

who were not appointed against duly sanctioned

posts, we are unable to accept such a sweeping

proposition in the facts of the present case. The

submission proceeds on the premise that Umadevi

(supra) lays down an absolute and inflexible embargo

against all forms of regularization irrespective of the

surrounding circumstances. Such an interpretation,

in our considered view, does not reflect the true scope

and ratio of the decision.

58

74. This Court in Jaggo (supra), deprecated the

tendency of the State to take mechanical shelter

under Umadevi (supra) to deny relief to employees

who had been performing work of a permanent and

essential nature for long years. This Court observed

as follows: -

“12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,”

the appellants performed these essential tasks on

a daily and continuous basis over extensive

periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two

decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or

temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent,

regular, and akin to the responsibilities

typically associated with sanctioned posts.

Moreover, the respondents did not engage any

other personnel for these tasks during t he

appellants' tenure, underscoring the

indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim by the respondents that these were

not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the

work performed by the appellants was perennial

and fundamental to the functioning of the

offices. The recurring nature of these duties

necessitates their classification as regular

posts, irrespective of how their initial

engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy

that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks

to private agencies after the appellants' termination

demonstrates the inherent need for these services.

This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced

one set of workers with another, further

underscores that the work in question was neither

temporary nor occasional.

59

19. It is evident from the foregoing that the

appellants' roles were not only essential but also

indistinguishable from those of regular

employees. Their sustained contributions over

extended periods, coupled with absence of any

adverse record, warrant equitab le treatment

and regularization of their services. Denial of

this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination,

amounts to manifest injustice and must be

rectified.

20. It is well established that the decision in

Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize

employees who have rendered long years of

service fulfilling ongoing and necessary

functions of the State or its instrumentalities.

The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor

entries and illegal appointments that

circumvent constitutional requirements.

However, where appointments were not illegal

but possibly “irregular,” and where employees

had served continuously against the backdrop

of sanctioned functions for a considerable

period, the need for a fair and humane

resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged,

continuous, and unblemished service

performing tasks inherently required on a

regular basis can, over the time, transform what

was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a

scenario demanding fair regularization . In a

recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v.

Union of India, it was held that held that

procedural formalities cannot be used to deny

regularization of service to an employee whose

appointment was termed “temporary” but has

performed the same duties as performed by the

60

regular employee over a considerable period in the

capacity of the regular employee.

22. The pervasive misuse of temporary

employment contracts, as exemplified in this

case, reflects a broader systemic issue that

adversely affects workers' rights and job

security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig

economy has led to an increase in precarious

employment arrangements, often characterized by

lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment.

Such practices have been criticized for exploiting

workers and unde rmining labour standards.

Government institutions, entrusted with upholding

the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even

greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative

employment practices. When public sector

entities engage in misuse of temporary

contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental

trends observed in the gig economy but also

sets a concerning precedent that can erode

public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary

employees, particularly in government institutions,

often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While

the foundational purpose of temporary contracts

may have been to address short-term or seasonal

needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism

to evade long-term obligations owed to employees.

These practices manifest in several ways:

• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels : Employees

engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and

integral to the functioning of an institution are

often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even

when their roles mirror those of regular employees.

Such misclassification deprives workers of the

dignity, security, and benefits that regular

61

employees are entitled to, despite performing

identical tasks.

• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees

are frequently dismissed without cause or notice,

as seen in the present case. This practice

undermines the principles of natural justice and

subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity,

regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

• Lack of Career Progression : Temporary

employees often find themselves excluded from

opportunities for skill development, promotions, or

incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in

their roles, creating a systemic disparity between

them and their regular counterparts, despite their

contributions being equally significant.

• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions

increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed

by temporary employees, effectively replacing one

set of exploited workers with another. This practice

not only perpetuates exploitation but also

demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the

obligation to offer regular employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary

employees are often denied fundamental benefits

such as pension, provident fund, health insurance,

and paid leave, even when their tenure spans

decades. This lack of social security subjects them

and their families to undue hardship, especially in

cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen

circumstances.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)

sought to curtail the practice of backdoor

entries and ensure appointments adhered to

constitutional principles, it is regrettable that

its principles are often misinterpreted or

misapplied to deny legitimate claims o f long-

62

serving employees. This judgment aimed to

distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular”

appointments. It categorically held that

employees in irregular appointments, who were

engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had

served continuously for more than ten ye ars,

should be considered for regularization as a one-

time measure. However, the laudable intent of

the judgment is being subverted when

institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately

reject the claims of employees, even in cases

where their appointmen ts are not illegal, but

merely lack adherence to procedural

formalities. Government departments often cite

the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that

no vested right to regularization exists for

temporary employees, overlooking the

judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases

where regularization is appropriate. This

selective application distorts the judgment's

spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it

against employees who have rendered

indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion,

it is imperative for government departments to lead

by example in providing fair and stable

employment. Engaging workers on a temporary

basis for extended periods, especially when

their roles are integral to the organization's

functioning, not only contravenes international

labour standards but also exposes the

organization to legal challenges and

undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair

employment practices, government institutions

can reduce the bu rden of unnecessary

litigation, promote job security, and uphold the

63

principles of justice and fairness that they are

meant to embody. This approach aligns with

international standards and sets a positive

precedent for the private sector to follow,

thereby contributing to the overall betterment

of labour practices in the country.”

(Emphasis supplied)

75. Recently, this Court in Bhola Nath (supra)

while relying on the judgment of Jaggo (supra),

Shripal (supra), and Dharam Singh (supra)

observed as follows:-

“13.6. This Court has, on several occasions,

deprecated the practice adopted by States of

engaging employees under the nominal labels of

“part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in

perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not

regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of

India, this Court underscored that government

departments must lead by example in ensuring

fair and stable employment, and evolved the

test of examining whether the duties performed

by such temporary employees are integral to the

day-to-day functioning of the organization.

13.7 In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam , and Vinod

Kumar v. Union of India , this Court cautioned

against a mechanical and blind reliance on

Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to

temporary employees in the absence of statutory

rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot

be employed as a shield to legitimise

exploitative engagements continued for years

without undertaking regular recruitment . The

Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a

64

distinction between appointments that are “illegal”

and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter

being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of

the prescribed conditions.

13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P ., this

Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-

hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as

employers. The Court criticised the practice of

outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a

means to evade regular employment

obligations, observing that such measures

perpetuate precarious working conditions while

circumventing fair and lawful engagement

practices.

13.9. The State must remain conscious that

part-time employees, such as the appellants,

constitute an integral part of the edifice upon

which the machinery of the State continues to

function. They are not merely ancillary to the

system, but form essential components thereof.

The equality mandate of our Constitution,

therefore, requires that their service be

reciprocated in a manner free from

arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the

State affecting the careers and livelihood of

such part-time and contractual employees are

guided by fairness and reason.”

(Emphasis supplied)

76. What emerges from the principles enunciated in

the aforesaid decisions is that the State cannot rely

upon the mere form of engagement to deny fair and

equitable treatment to employees who have served it

for long years. The consistent thread running

65

through these judgments is that Umadevi (supra)

cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier to justify

prolonged and continued engagements of a

temporary or ad hoc nature, especially where the

employees have been discharging essential and

recurring functions of the State. The Court has

repeatedly emphasised that the distinction between

“illegal” and “irregular” appointments must be kept

in view, that long and continuous service is a relevant

consideration, and that the State, as a model

employer, is under a constitutional obligation to act

with fairness, consistency and reasonableness. The

practice of retaining employees for decades under

deceptively titled designations, while simultaneously

extracting regular work integral to the

administration, has been disapproved consistently.

77. Applying these principles to the present case, it

is evident that engaging workers on muster rolls was

a consistently employed policy of the State which

continued for prolonged period of time . The

appellants were not engaged for sporadic or seasonal

purposes but were taken on muster rolls and have

rendered continuous service for decades in

departments performing regular governmental

66

functions. The State itself acknowledged the

magnitude of the issue and framed a Cabinet policy

to regularize similarly situated workers, acting upon

it in respect of nearly 30,000 employees. In such

circumstances, to deny consideration to the fraction

of remaining eligible workers including the

appellants, by taking shelter under a rigid reading of

Umadevi (supra) would defeat the very principles of

fairness and non-arbitrariness that this Court has

consistently upheld.

78. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to

accept the contention of the State that the appellants

cannot be granted regularization on the ground that

they were not initially appointed against duly

sanctioned posts. The State, having engaged the

appellants prior to 1

st April, 1993, utilised their

services continuously for decades, and having itself

framed and implemented a Cabinet policy

regularizing nearly 30,000 similarly situated

workers, cannot now exclude the appellants by

taking shelter behind a rigid or technical reading of

Umadevi (supra). In absence of any cogent

distinction or reasoned decision justifying such

exclusion, the action of the State is manifestly

67

arbitrary. It is inconsistent with its obligation to

function as a model employer and does not withstand

scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

79. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the

impugned judgment dated 8

th June, 2017 passed by

the Division Bench cannot be sustained and is set

aside and the judgment of the learned Single Judge

dated 20

th December, 2013 is affirmed.

Consequently, we pass the following directions:-

I. The appellants shall be treated as regularised in

service in terms of the Cabinet decision dated

22

nd July, 2005 and from the date on which

similarly placed 30,000 employees were given

benefit of the said Cabinet decision.

II. The State of Assam shall identify and verify the

eligible appellants and, where necessary, create

supernumerary posts to facilitate their

regularization.

III. Upon regularization, the appellants shall be

entitled to all consequential benefits, including

fixation of pay in the regular scale, continuity of

service, and all applicable pensionary and post-

retiral benefits in the same terms, as were

68

extended to similarly situated 30,000

employees.

IV. In case of retired appellants, they shall be

granted notional regularization with

consequential monetary benefits and arrears

from the relevant date until their

superannuation for the purpose of recalculating

pension, gratuity, and terminal dues.

V. In case of deceased appellants, arrears and

other benefits shall be released to their legal

heirs in accordance with law.

VI. The entire exercise, including the calculation

and payment of all financial arrears, shall be

completed within a period of one year from the

date of this judgment.

VII. We make it clear that the benefit of the above

directions shall only be applicable to the

appellants who were working in the

departments of the State before the cut-off date

prescribed in Cabinet decision dated 22

nd July,

2005 i.e. before 1

st April, 1993.

80. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No order

as to costs.

69

81. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

Civil Appeal No. 4519 of 2025; Civil Appeal No.

4520 of 2025

82. The instant appeals have been preferred by All

Assam Work Charge Employee Association

15, a

registered State-wide association representing the

interests of Work Charged employees serving under

various departments of the Government of Assam,

assailing the judgment and order dated 8

th June,

2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court

in Writ Appeal No. 45 of 2014 whereby the Division

Bench set aside the judgment and order dated 20

th

December, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge,

and reversed the direction of regularization,

pensionary and other benefits passed in favour of

Work Charged and Muster Roll employees.

83. The appellant-association is aggrieved by the

impugned judgment to the limited extent that the

Division Bench, while adjudicating upon the claims

of Muster Roll and Casual workers, proceeded to treat

Work Charged employees as forming part of the same

15

Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-association”.

70

class as Muster Roll workers and thereby foreclosed

their entitlement to pension and other consequential

benefits, without independently examining their

distinct factual and legal position, and without the

appellant-association or its members having been

impleaded as parties or afforded an opportunity of

being heard before the High Court. In particular, the

appellants are aggrieved by the observations made by

the Division Bench in paragraph 23 of the impugned

judgment, which read as follows:-

“For these reasons, we are of the view that in the

fact situation of the case, Muster Roll workers,

Work Charged workers and Casual workers are

not entitled for regularization of their services with

consequential benefits, such as, pension etc.”

84. Aggrieved by the adverse findings recorded in

the impugned judgment, the appellant-association

preferred Review Petition No. 150 of 2019 before the

High Court seeking reconsideration of the

observations contained in the impugned judgment,

particularly to the extent the same affected the rights

of Work Charged employees who were not party to the

proceedings. However, in view of the pendency of

special leave petitions before this Court assailing the

same impugned judgment, the High Court, vide order

71

dated 27

th July, 2023, permitted the appellant-

association to withdraw the review petition.

Thereafter, the appellant-association approached

this Court by filing the present special leave petition

along with an application for permission to file which

was granted by this Court vide order dated 1

st

December, 2023.

Submissions

85. Shri Manish Goswami and Ms. Anitha Shenoy,

learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-

association submitted that the appellant-association

and its members were never impleaded as parties in

the writ proceedings before the High Court which

culminated in the impugned judgment, and

consequently had no opportunity to present their

case, particularly in relation to their entitlement to

pension and other post-retiral benefits. It was

submitted that the observations made in paragraph

23 of the impugned judgment, insofar as they relate

to Work Charged employees, were rendered without

hearing the affected class and without examining

their distinct factual and legal position.

86. Learned senior counsel submitted that the

claim of the Work Charged employees for pension and

72

other post retiral benefits is based upon Office

Memoranda issued by the Government of Assam,

including O.M. No. FMP.48/83/40 dated 10

th

August, 1983; O.M. No PPG(P)196/92/35 dated 12

th

September, 1996; and O.M. No PPG(P) 196/92/61

dated and 6

th September, 2003, which continue to

remain in force and provide for grant of pensionary

benefits to temporary Government employees who

have rendered the prescribed period of continuous

service. It was urged that these Office Memoranda

were neither placed before nor considered by the High

Court while rendering the impugned judgment. It was

further urged that Work Charged employees are

governed by applicable service rules and protections,

including the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal)

Rules, 1964, Fundamental Rules and Supplementary

Rules, and are extended service benefits such as

grade pay, allowances, maintenance of service

records, and deductions towards GPF and GIS.

87. Learned senior counsel contended that Work

Charged employees constitute a distinct class of

Government employees, and the High Court erred in

treating them at par with Muster Roll and Casual

workers without examining their separate legal

73

status. It was submitted that the appellant -

association seeks only a limited clarification that the

observations contained in paragraph 23 of the

impugned judgment shall not foreclose the

independent remedies and entitlements of Work

Charged employees under applicable rules and

executive instructions.

88. Accordingly, learned senior counsel prayed that

the impugned judgment be modified to the aforesaid

limited extent, so as to permit Work Charged

employees to pursue their claims for pension and

other consequential benefits in accordance with law.

89. Per contra, Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Assam

submitted that the present appeals are not

maintainable at the instance of the appellant -

association as it had failed to disclose the identity,

service particulars, or other relevant details of its

alleged members, and in the absence of such

foundational material, the claims made in the

present proceedings remain unverified and

unsubstantiated. Shri Gupta further submitted that

the appellant-association was never a party to the

writ proceedings before the High Court and had not

74

independently instituted any writ petition raising its

grievances. The issues and factual assertions now

sought to be urged have not been adjudicated by any

Court and without the benefit of pleadings or findings

of the writ Court, the present appeals cannot be

adjudicated for the first time in proceedings under

Article 136 of the Constitution.

90. Learned senior counsel contended that no

blanket directions or observations should be issued

at the instance of the appellant-association, as the

same would cause serious administrative and

financial prejudice to the State. Accordingly, learned

senior counsel prayed that the present appeals be

dismissed and the impugned judgment be affirmed.

Discussion

91. Having heard learned senior counsel appearing

for the parties and upon perusal of the material

placed on record, it is evident that the grievance of

the appellant–association is confined to a limited

facet of the impugned judgment dated 8

th June 2017

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court,

insofar as it treats Work Charged employees at par

with Muster Roll and Casual workers, without an

75

independent examination of their distinct legal and

factual status.

92. We may note that we have already set aside the

impugned judgment in entirety while adjudicating

the appeals of the Muster Roll and Casual workers in

Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025.

93. It is not in dispute that neither the appellant–

association nor its members were impleaded as

parties in the writ proceedings culminating in the

impugned judgment. Consequently, the Work

Charged employees neither individually nor in

representative capacity had an opportunity of being

heard, particularly on the issue of their entitlement

to pensionary and other consequential benefits. The

observations made in paragraph 23 of the impugned

judgment, to the extent they pertain to Work Charged

employees were, thus, recorded without affording an

opportunity to the affected class and without

consideration of the relevant Office Memoranda and

applicable service framework governing such

employees.

94. Further, it is pertinent to note that there was no

independent adjudication before the High Court

concerning the distinct claims and service conditions

76

of Work Charged employees and despite the absence

of any specific pleadings or consideration on the

issue, adverse observations came to be recorded

against them.

95. In this backdrop and having regard to the settled

principle that no adverse finding ought to be recorded

against a class of persons without hearing them,

more particularly when the lis affects the monetary

rights of the group of employees, this Court is of the

considered view that the impugned judgment, to the

limited extent indicated above, cannot be sustained.

We may reiterate that the impugned judgment dated

8

th June 2017 passed by the Division Bench has

already been set aside in Civil Appeal No. 4514 of

2025 and hence the observations contained therein

shall not operate to prejudice or foreclose the

independent claims of Work Charged employees, if

any.

Conclusion

96. Accordingly, it is clarified that Work Charged

employees shall be treated as a distinct class, and

their entitlement to pension and other post-retiral

benefits shall not be adversely affected by the

observations made in the impugned judgment.

77

97. The members of the appellant–association, if

they so desire, shall be at liberty to agitate their

claims for pensionary and other consequential

benefits before the State Government. However, this

order shall not be treated as conferring any specific

right or entitlement on any such employee.

98. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No

order as to costs.

99. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

Civil Appeal No. 4523 of 2025

100. The instant appeal has been preferred assailing

order dated 19

th June, 2024 passed by the Division

Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 197 of

2024 whereby the Division Bench, dismissed the writ

appeal and affirmed the order dated 10

th May, 2024

passed by the learned Single Judge holding the

appellants ineligible for pensionary benefits.

101. The appellants herein are Muster Roll workers

serving in different ferry services under the office of

the Executive Engineer, IWT, Silchar, having been

appointed between the years 1993 and 1995 . They

have been paid grade pay, dearness allowance,

medical allowance and other service benefits in a

78

manner similar to regular employees, but pensionary

benefits have not been extended to them. In a

meeting dated 22

nd September, 2023 between the

State authorities and the Sadou Assam Karmachari

Parishad, it was resolved that a proposal for

extending pensionary benefits to Muster Roll

employees would be submitted by the Administrative

Department to the Finance Department. However, no

proposal including the names of the appellants were

forwarded. The appellants submitted representations

dated 8

th January, 2024 and 22

nd February, 2024,

however, the same remained unanswered.

102. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed Writ

Petition No. 1946 of 2024 seeking a direction to the

administrative department to place the proposal

before the Finance Department in terms of the

decision taken on 22

nd September, 2023. During the

pendency of the writ petition, another meeting was

held on 15

th March, 2024, wherein it was decided that

the State would favourably examine the case of

casual, Muster Roll and minimum pay scale

employees for coverage under the New Pension

Scheme, subject to their willingness to contribute the

prescribed premium. Notwithstanding these

79

developments, the High Court dismissed the writ

petition vide order dated 10

th May, 2024 on the

ground that the issue stood concluded by an earlier

Division Bench decision in State of Assam v. Upen

Das

16 (impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4514

of 2025 and Civil Appeal No. 4519 of 2020), and

consequently held that the appellants were not

entitled to pensionary benefits.

103. The appellants preferred a writ appeal against

the order of the learned Single Judge, which also

came to be dismissed vide order dated 19

th June,

2024, which is the subject matter of challenge in the

present appeal.

104. Since the judgment dated 8

th June, 2017

passed in Upen Das (supra), which was relied by the

Division Bench has been set aside in Civil Appeal No.

4514 of 2025, the impugned judgment dated 19

th

June, 2024 cannot be sustained and is accordingly

set aside.

105. The appellants shall be at liberty to agitate

their claims for pensionary benefits before the

16

2017 SCC OnLine Gau 360

80

appropriate authority/forum in accordance with law

and the applicable policy framework.

106. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

107. Pending applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

….……………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH )

...…………………….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 21, 2026.