# Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State of Assam and Others

- **Citation:** 2026 INSC 523
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2026-05-21
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sukhendu-bhattacharjee-and-others-v-the-state-of-assam-and-others-39421
- **Pages:** 53

## Headnote

Whether the appellants can be denied the benefit of regularization
solely on the ground that they were not appointed against
sanctioned posts and that the decision in Umadevi case prohibits
such regularization.
Headnotes†
Service Law - Regularization - Denial of, on the ground
that initial appointment was not against sanctioned posts,
despite having rendered continuous service for decades and
regularization of similarly situated workers - Impermissibility -
Appellants engaged as Muster Roll workers under various
departments of the Government of Assam prior to 01.04.1993
had rendered long and continuous service extending over
decades, and were identically placed as the 30,000 workers
whose services were regularized pursuant to the Cabinet
decision dtd.22.07.2005 to regularize Work Charged and Muster
Roll workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993 - However, 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 - Multiple writ petitions filed before
High Court, Single Judge directed regularization along with
consequential benefits in favour of the appellants - Order
set aside by Division Bench inter alia holding that since
the appellants were not appointed against duly sanctioned
vacant posts therefore, did not satisfy the requirements of
the exception carved out in Umadevi case - Interference with:
Held: Impugned judgment unsustainable - Engaging workers
on muster rolls was a consistently employed policy of the State
which continued for prolonged period of time - Appellants were
not engaged for sporadic or seasonal purposes but were taken on
* Author
540
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
muster rolls and have rendered continuous service for decades in
departments performing regular governmental functions - State
having engaged the appellants prior to 01.04.1993, utilised their
services continuously for decades and 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 or technical reading of Umadevi would
defeat the very principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness - In
absence of any cogent distinction or reasoned decision justifying
such exclusion, the action of the State is manifestly arbitrary - It
is inconsistent with its obligation to function as a model employer
and does not withstand scrutiny u/Art.14 of the Constitution - 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, rejected - Impugned judgment set
aside and that of the Single Judge is affirmed - Directions issued -
Constitution of India - Art.14. [Paras 77-79]
Constitution - Art.14 - Standards of fairness and accountability
expected of the State and its instrumentalities - Refusal to
regularize the eligible workers who stood on the same footing/
identically placed as those 30,000 workers whose services
were regularized by policy decision in 2005, violation of Art.14:
Held: Equals must be treated equally, and if persons similarly placed
are treated differently without a rational basis, it would amount to
a violation of Art.14 of the Constitution - 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 -
State itself framed a policy in 2005 to regularize

## Text

_Characters 0–39,946 of 116,189. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39946 for what follows._

[2026] 6 S.C.R. 539 : 2026 INSC 523
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others
v.
The State of Assam and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025)
21 May 2026
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellants can be denied the benefit of regularization
solely on the ground that they were not appointed against
sanctioned posts and that the decision in Umadevi case prohibits
such regularization.
Headnotes†
Service Law - Regularization - Denial of, on the ground
that initial appointment was not against sanctioned posts,
despite having rendered continuous service for decades and
regularization of similarly situated workers - Impermissibility -
Appellants engaged as Muster Roll workers under various
departments of the Government of Assam prior to 01.04.1993
had rendered long and continuous service extending over
decades, and were identically placed as the 30,000 workers
whose services were regularized pursuant to the Cabinet
decision dtd.22.07.2005 to regularize Work Charged and Muster
Roll workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993 - However, 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 - Multiple writ petitions filed before
High Court, Single Judge directed regularization along with
consequential benefits in favour of the appellants - Order
set aside by Division Bench inter alia holding that since
the appellants were not appointed against duly sanctioned
vacant posts therefore, did not satisfy the requirements of
the exception carved out in Umadevi case - Interference with:
Held: Impugned judgment unsustainable - Engaging workers
on muster rolls was a consistently employed policy of the State
which continued for prolonged period of time - Appellants were
not engaged for sporadic or seasonal purposes but were taken on
* Author
540
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
muster rolls and have rendered continuous service for decades in
departments performing regular governmental functions - State
having engaged the appellants prior to 01.04.1993, utilised their
services continuously for decades and 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 or technical reading of Umadevi would
defeat the very principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness - In
absence of any cogent distinction or reasoned decision justifying
such exclusion, the action of the State is manifestly arbitrary - It
is inconsistent with its obligation to function as a model employer
and does not withstand scrutiny u/Art.14 of the Constitution - 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, rejected - Impugned judgment set
aside and that of the Single Judge is affirmed - Directions issued -
Constitution of India - Art.14. [Paras 77-79]
Constitution - Art.14 - Standards of fairness and accountability
expected of the State and its instrumentalities - Refusal to
regularize the eligible workers who stood on the same footing/
identically placed as those 30,000 workers whose services
were regularized by policy decision in 2005, violation of Art.14:
Held: Equals must be treated equally, and if persons similarly placed
are treated differently without a rational basis, it would amount to
a violation of Art.14 of the Constitution - 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 -
State itself framed a policy in 2005 to regularize Work Charged
and Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993 - Pursuant
to the aforesaid policy decision, approximately 30,000 workers
were regularized - 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
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
541
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State of Assam and Others
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 - Moreover, 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 - Once the
State confers a benefit upon a particular class, it cannot arbitrarily
deny the same benefit to others who are identically situated - Thus,
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 u/Art.14 of the
Constitution. [Paras 60, 61, 63]
Service Law - Regularization - Long and continuous service,
a relevant consideration - State cannot rely upon the mere
form of engagement to deny fair and equitable treatment to
employees who served for long years - Division Bench set
aside the order of the Single Judge thus, reversing the direction
of regularization and consequential benefits granted in favour
of the appellants inter alia holding that since the appellants
were not appointed against duly sanctioned vacant posts
therefore, did not satisfy the requirements of the exception
carved out in Umadevi case:
Held: In the facts of the present case, reliance placed by the
Division Bench on Umadevi and M.L. Kesari was misplaced -
Paragraph 53 of Umadevi 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 was rooted in the
Cabinet decision dtd.22.07.2005, by which the State consciously
decided to regularize the services of Work Charged and Muster
Roll workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993, and pursuant to which
nearly 30,000 similarly situated employees were in fact regularized
542
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
by creation of posts - Appellants claimed parity with that very class
and sought equal treatment u/Art.14 - Therefore, the issue is not
one of invoking the limited exception carved out in Umadevi, but of
ensuring that employees who stand on the same footing are treated
alike - State cannot rely upon the mere form of engagement to
deny fair and equitable treatment to employees who have served
it for long years - Umadevi 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
distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments must be
kept in view, long and continuous service is a relevant consideration,
and 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 -
Constitution of India - Art.14. [Paras 59, 76]
Constitution of India - Art.14 - Doctrine of legitimate
expectation - Rooted in the principles of fairness and nonarbitrariness u/Art.14 - Role of State as a model employer:
Held: 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 - 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 - 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 - State as a model
employer is under a higher constitutional obligation to ensure that
its actions are just, reasonable and non-arbitrary - 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 reprobate - Repeated undertakings given by the State before
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
543
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State of Assam and Others
the High Court, coupled with the earlier implementation of the
Cabinet decision in favour of nearly 30,000 similarly situated
workers, 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
Art.14 - 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 - State
could not thereafter retract from its earlier position in a selective
or inconsistent manner. [Paras 66-68, 70]
Undertakings, given in Court - Significance:
Held: 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 - State cannot approbate and 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. [Para 67]
Policy Decisions/Executive Decisions - Implementation of -
Role of Courts - Confined to judicial review, Courts do not
grant prior approval to executive decisions - Regularization,
an executive function and falls within the domain of policy
and administration:
Held: Single Judge rightly held that there was no requirement for
the State to seek permission of the Court to implement its own
policy decision - 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 - In the present case, seeking permission in the manner done
544
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
by the State amounted, in effect, to a surrender of its executive
authority - The executive cannot abdicate its responsibility by
placing the burden upon the Court to approve or disapprove the
implementation of its own policy - Course adopted by the State
was neither necessary nor justified - Service Law - Regularization.
[Paras 71, 72]
Service Law - Writ Proceedings - Recording adverse finding
without hearing - Impermissibility - In Civil Appeal No. 4519
of 2025; Civil Appeal No. 4520 of 2025, neither the appellantassociation nor its members were impleaded as parties in
the writ proceedings culminating in the impugned judgment -
Grievance of the appellant confined to the limited facet of
the impugned judgment insofar as it treated Work Charged
employees at par with Muster Roll and Casual workers, without
an independent examination of their distinct legal and factual
status:
Held: 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 - Impugned
judgment, to the limited extent, cannot be sustained - Impugned
judgment passed by the Division Bench has already been set
aside in Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025 hence, the observations
contained therein shall not operate to prejudice or foreclose the
independent claims of Work Charged employees, if any - 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. [Paras 95, 96]
Service Law - Denial of pensionary benefits - In Civil Appeal
No. 4523 of 2025, writ petition was filed by the appellantsMuster Roll workers who were paid grade pay, dearness
allowance, medical allowance and other service benefits
in a manner similar to regular employees, but were denied
pensionary benefits - Dismissed by High Court on the ground
that the issue stood concluded by an earlier Division Bench
decision in State of Assam v. Upen Das (impugned judgment
in Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025 and Civil Appeal No. 4519
of 2020), holding that the appellants were not entitled to
pensionary benefits - Challenge to:
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
545
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State of Assam and Others
Held: Since the judgment passed in Upen Das which was relied
by the Division Bench has been set aside in Civil Appeal No.
4514 of 2025, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and
is accordingly set aside - Appellants at liberty to agitate their
claims for pensionary benefits before the appropriate authority/
forum in accordance with law and the applicable policy framework.
[Paras 104, 105]
Case Law Cited
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [2006] 3 SCR 953 : (2006)
4 SCC 1; State of Karnataka & Others v. M.L. Kesari & Others
[2010] 9 SCR 543 : (2010) 9 SCC 247 - held not applicable.
Jaggo v. Union of India [2024] 12 SCR 1235 : 2024 SCC Online
SC 3826; Shripal v. Nagar Nigam [2025] 1 SCR 1427 : 2025
SCC Online SC 221; Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
[2025] 8 SCRT 1026 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735; Azam Jahi
Mill Workers Association v. National Textile Corporation Ltd. [2021]
11 SCR 321 : (2022) 17 SCC 797; Pawan Kumar and Others v.
Union of India and Others, 2026 INSC 156; Bhola Nath v. State
of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99; National Buildings
Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan [1998] 1 Supp. SCR
156 : (1998) 7 SCC 66 - relied on.
State of Assam v. Upen Das, 2017 SCC OnLine Gau 360 -
disapproved.
Jitendra Kalita & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., 2006 (2) GLT 654;
Ramani Deka and Others v. State of Assam and Others, W.P. (C)
No. 1271 of 2006 - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Regularization; Work Charged workers; Muster Roll workers; Work
Charged employees; Regularization of Work Charged workers;
Regularization of Muster Roll workers; Denial of regularization;
Appointment not against duly sanctioned posts; Not duly sanctioned
posts; Not appointed against sanctioned posts; Initial appointment;
Not engaged for sporadic or seasonal purposes; Rendered
continuous service for decades; Performed regular governmental
546
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
functions; Long and continuous service; Work of permanent and
essential nature; Identically situated; Persons similarly placed;
Similarly situated workers; Two sets of employees; On same
footing; Long years of service; Unequal and arbitrary treatment;
Casual workers; Engagement prior to cut-off date; Engaged prior
to cut-off date; One identifiable class; Inadvertent errors; Clerical
mistakes; Differential treatment discriminatory; Same relief;
Excluded employees; Standards of fairness and accountability;
Legitimate expectation; Not vested right; Principles of fairness;
Non-arbitrariness; Article 14 of the Constitution; Equals to be
treated equally; Cabinet policy; Create supernumerary posts; Ferry
services; Prolonged and continued engagements; Temporary or
ad hoc nature; Essential and recurring functions; Administrative
deficiencies; Administrative lapses; Clerical omissions; Policy
Decisions; Executive Decisions; Domain of policy; Policy measure;
Executive function; Abdication of responsibility by Executive;
Adverse finding without hearing; Workers and field supervisors;
Maintenance of official works; Development of public roads; Sub
divisions of State of Assam; Policy for regularization.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
4514 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.06.2017 of the Gauhati
High Court in WA No. 45 of 2014
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 4516, 4515, 4517, 4518, 4519, 4520 and 4523
of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, B K Sharma, Manish Goswami, Sr. Advs.,
Siddhartha Jha, Kartik Jha, Ms. Nitika Sud, Avijit Roy, Ms. Srishti
Agnihotri, Ms. Sadhana Madhavan, Ms. Kavana Rao, D. P.
Singh, Ms. Anchal Kanthed, Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Seema
Sharma, Utkarsh Kumar, Somiran Sharma, Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta,
R B Phookan, Ms. Neha Tandon, Gautam Talukdar, Ms. Tapasya
Kakaty, Nilim Sharma, Subhra Jyoti Sharma, Gaurav Shukla,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal.
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
547
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State of Assam and Others
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G., Jaideep Gupta, B.K Sharma,
Sr. Advs., Ankit Roy, Ms. Nimisha Menon, Irfan Hasieb, Vijay
Deora, Aditya Agarwal, Ms. Mrinalini Ramesh, Ms. Diksha Rai,
Ms. Nimisha Menon, Piyush Vyas, Ms. Purvat Wali, Riddhi Bose,
Mrs. Rishi Agarwal, Mrs. Racheeta Chawla, Mrs. Sampriti Baksi,
Bharadwaj S., Manish Raghav, Nitin Jain, Ms. Anisa Jain, Ms.
Sangita Tahbildar, Lokesh Sharma, Brijesh Kumar Tamber, Kaushik
Choudhury, Saksham Garg, Jyotirmoy Chatterjee, Nilim Sarma.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025; Civil Appeal No. 4516 of 2025;
Civil Appeal No. 4515 of 2025; Civil Appeal No. 4517 of 2025
and Civil Appeal No. 4518 of 2025
1.
Delay condoned in filing application for setting aside of abatement.
Abatement is set aside. Delay condoned in filing application(s) for
substitution. Application(s) for substitution is/are allowed. Applications
for impleadment are dismissed.
2.
In matters concerning long-standing administrative arrangements,
particularly where the State and its instrumentalities, over time,
continue to utilize the services of certain categories of workers in
the discharge of its functions, Courts are often required to examine
whether executive action conforms to constitutional standards of
fairness and consistency. The exercise of public power cannot be
divorced from practical realities created by sustained governmental
reliance on such workers. Where governmental authorities derive
the benefit of prolonged service and thereafter adopt positions that
appear inconsistent with earlier policies or representations, the
scrutiny of the Court is directed not merely at the outcome, but at
the manner in which discretion has been exercised. The touchstone
remains whether the action of the State is reasoned, non-arbitrary
and in harmony with the constitutional mandate. It is within this
broader constitutional perspective that the present issues fall for
consideration.
548
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3.
The instant batch of appeals takes exception to common judgment
and order dated 8th June, 2017 passed by Division Bench of the
Gauhati High Court1 in Writ Appeal No. 45 of 2014, whereby the
Division Bench of the High Court, set aside the judgment and order
dated 20th December, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge,
thereby reversing the direction of regularization and consequential
benefits granted in favour of the appellants.
4.
Since these appeals arise out of a common impugned judgment and
involve identical questions of law and fact, the same are being heard
together and disposed of by this common judgment.
5.
Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025 is treated as the lead matter and
reference to facts and issues is being made therefrom for the purpose
of adjudication of the instant batch of appeals.
Brief Facts: -
6.
In view of the growing requirement of manpower, including workers
and field supervisors, for construction, maintenance of official
works, and development of public roads across different subdivisions of the State of Assam, the State Government had been
engaging Muster Roll workers since the year 1980. Consequently,
a large number of persons, including the appellants herein were
engaged as Muster Roll workers under various departments of the
Government of Assam.
7.
On 23rd 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 implemented, remained unclear, save and except that the Chief
Secretary to the Government of Assam, by communication dated 15th
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 1st
August, 1984.
1
Hereinafter, referred to as "High Court".
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
549
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State of Assam and Others
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 23rd 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 20th April, 19952 to all Commissioners and Secretaries
of the Government of Assam, recording that despite the 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 20th 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
2
Hereinafter, referred to as "1995 O.M.".
550
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 20th
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 of Work Charged and Muster Roll workers who
had been engaged prior to 1st April, 1993.
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
551
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State of Assam and Others
11. The aforesaid Office Memorandum was followed by another Office
Memorandum dated 11th October, 1995 whereby strict instructions
were issued to the State Government officials to not engage any
further Work Charged or Muster Roll workers after 1st April, 1993.
12. A further clarification dated 13th 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 20th 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 1st
April, 1993 and had rendered long years of service. The High Court
vide common order dated 23rd September, 1998, while directing
regularization of those engaged prior to 1st April, 1993 held that
the persons engaged after the said date did not have any legally
enforceable right to claim regularization.
14. Subsequent to the 1995 O.M., the Under Secretary to the Government
of Assam, Personnel (B) Department issued a circular dated 29th
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 PERSONNEL:::PERSONNEL (B)
DISPUR, GUWAHATI
No. ABP. 30/98/10
Dated Dispur, the 29th 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
552
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Sub:- REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES OF WORKCHARGED 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 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 3rd November,
2000 whereby all the Principal Secretaries, 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
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
553
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State of Assam and Others
engagement for regularization of their services. The said circular is
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL:::PERSONNEL (B)
DISPUR, GUWAHATI
No. ABP. 30/98/144
Dated Dispur, the 3rd 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 WORKCHARGED 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
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, as 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
554
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
into consideration the length of continuous engagement,
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
directing regularization of ad-hoc/casual workers appointed prior to
1st 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 & Ors3.
17. While the adjudication in Jitendra Kalita (supra) was still pending, the
State Cabinet on 22nd July, 2005 reiterated the decision to regularize
the services of Work Charged and Muster Roll workers who were
engaged prior to 1st 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 22nd 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
Dated Dispur, the 22nd July, 2005
From: Shri D.N. Saikia, IAS,
Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Finance Department, Dispur.
3
2006 (2) GLT 654.
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
555
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State of Assam and Others
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
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
556
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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).
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
557
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State of Assam and Others
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 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.
558
[2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.