Holding

The Supreme Court held that denial of regularization to the appellants violated Article 14 and that the Umadevi decision does not bar regularization when a valid executive policy, such as the 2005 Cabinet decision, applies to similarly situated workers.

Summary

The appellants, engaged as Work Charged and Muster Roll workers in various departments of the Government of Assam before 1 April 1993, rendered continuous service for decades. The State, through a Cabinet decision dated 22 July 2005, regularized about 30,000 similarly situated workers, but due to clerical lapses the appellants were omitted. The High Court initially ordered their regularization, which was later set aside by a Division Bench on the ground that they were not appointed against sanctioned posts and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Umadevi barred such regularization. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench’s reliance on Umadevi was misplaced, because the appellants’ claim rested on the 2005 policy and the principle of equality under Article 14, not on the narrow one‑time exception in Umadevi. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, affirmed the Single Judge’s order, and directed the State to regularize the appellants with all consequential benefits. The Court also clarified that Work Charged employees constitute a distinct class for pension claims and may pursue them independently.

Issues considered

Whether the appellants can be denied regularization solely because they were not appointed against duly sanctioned posts.
Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Umadevi precludes regularization of Work Charged and Muster Roll workers engaged before 1 April 1993.
Whether the State’s omission of eligible workers violates the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the State’s undertakings before the High Court give rise to a legitimate expectation enforceable against the State.
Whether adverse findings against Work Charged employees can be sustained without a hearing.

Legislation cited

Headnote

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 – 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

Subjects

RegularizationWork Charged workersMuster Roll workersArticle 14EqualityLegitimate expectationModel employerAdministrative lapseClerical errorService lawPension benefitsUmadevi caseOne-time exceptionExecutive functionJudicial review

Judgment

[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 non-
arbitrariness 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 appellant-
association 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 appellants-
Muster 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
C I V I L A P P E L L AT E J U R I S D I C T I O N : C i v i l A p p e a l N o .
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 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 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
S u b : - R E G U L A R I Z AT I O N O F S E R V I Ç E S O F
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 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 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 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
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 Regarding sanction to
(Annexure ‘B’) the creation of posts for
regularizing services of
Work Charged/Muster
Roll Workers who are still
continuing.
Draft Model Sanction No. II Regarding sanction to the
(Annexure ‘C’) 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. 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.
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 559

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

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”
18. During the course of proceedings in Jitendra Kalita (supra), the
Chief Secretary to Government of Assam filed an affidavit dated
14th November, 2005 informing the Court about the Cabinet decision
dated 22nd July, 2005.
19. The Full Bench vide order dated 17th 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 22nd July, 2005.
21. A subsequent communication dated 22nd August, 2005 issued by the
Finance (EC-II) Department and the Office Memorandum dated 31st
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
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 22nd 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 1st April, 1993 and
long and continuous service, in many cases exceeding twenty-five
560 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 Others, wherein the petitioners, who were
engaged as Work Charged/ Muster Roll workers prior to 1st April,
1993, sought regularization on the strength of the Cabinet decision
dated 22nd 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 1st 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 6th 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 10th December, 2010 in the High Court submitting that
the State Government had formulated a draft policy for regularization
of services of Work Charged and Muster Roll workers who had
been engaged prior to 1st 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 1st 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 30th July, 2010,
directed the State Government to frame a policy for regularization
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 561

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

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 1st November, 2010, the learned Additional Advocate General
submitted that an undertaking had already 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 30th July, 2010.
27. When Ramani Deka (supra) was taken up for hearing on 14th
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 application4
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 this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs.
Umadevi5 had created a legal embargo on such regularization.
A Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 27th 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 16th June, 20126, 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

4 M.C. No. 597/2012
5 (2006) 4 SCC 1
6 Hereinafter referred to as “2012 O.M.”
562 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Government, even if such workers had been engaged prior to 1st
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 1st
April, 1993 but had either died or attained the age of 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 20th 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 1st 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 workers 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 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 10th 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 & Others7, employees
who had completed ten years of continuous service as on 10th
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.
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 563

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

iii. Prior to the pronouncement in Umadevi (supra), the State of
Assam had taken a conscious Cabinet policy decision on 22nd
July, 2005 to regularize Work Charged and Muster Roll workers
engaged prior to 1st 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 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 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.
564 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 22nd July, 2005
and the earlier undertakings given to the Court.
33. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20th 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 8th June, 2017
allowed the writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge. Some of 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.
iii. Although the State had taken a Cabinet decision on 22nd July,
2005 and regularized about 30,000 similarly placed workers,
post 10th, April 2006 [date of judgment in Umadevi (supra)], the
State could not continue or extend regularization 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 8th June, 2017 passed by
the Division Bench is subject matter of challenge in the present
batch of appeals.
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 565

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

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
admittedly the appellants were engaged prior to 1st 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
22nd 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 1st 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 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
566 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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, namely
the Cabinet decision dated 22nd 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 1st April, 1993 were left out of the regularization
exercise owing to clerical errors 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 India8, Shripal v.
Nagar Nigam9 and Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh10,
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

8 2024 SCC Online SC 3826.
9 2025 SCC Online SC 221.
10 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735.
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 567

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

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 8th June, 2017 passed by the Division Bench be set
aside, and the appellants be granted the benefit of regularization in
terms of the Cabinet decision dated 22nd 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 8th 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 22nd 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 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 regularization
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
568 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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,
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 569

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

sanctioned posts, or identifiable lapses on the part of the State which
were absent in the present case. It was further 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 8th June, 2017 be affirmed;
and no 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 1st April, 1993 and had
continuously discharged their duties over a prolonged period of
time. Their position is, in no manner, distinguishable from those
Work Charged/Muster Roll workers whose services were regularized
pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated 22nd 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
570 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

question, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether, in the
aforesaid circumstances, 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 (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:-
“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
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 571

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

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: -
“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 circumstances,
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,
572 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 573

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

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), 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 10th 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 22nd July, 2005, by which the State consciously
decided to regularize the services of Work Charged and Muster
Roll workers engaged prior to 1st April, 1993, and pursuant to which
nearly 30,000 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 Constitution11. 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

11 Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association v. National Textile Corporation Ltd., (2022) 17 SCC 797.
574 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
61. In the present case, the State itself framed a policy in 2005 to
regularize Work Charged and Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 1st
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.
62. Recently, in Pawan Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others12
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

12 2026 INSC 156.
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 575

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

meted out to the appellants is apparent on the face of the record.
However, the facts and circumstances of the present 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 22nd 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 1st April, 1993 had been left out in the exercise
of regularization. The Court was informed that the Government
was actively considering their cases and 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 any legal impediment arising from
Umadevi (supra), it ought to have raised such concerns at the first
576 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 22nd 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 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 Others13 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
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.

13 2026 INSC 99.
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 577

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

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. Raghunathan14 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 statements 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

14 (1998) 7 SCC 66
578 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

State could not thereafter retract 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 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.
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: -
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 579

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

“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 the 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.
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 equitable
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
580 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 undermining
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:
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 581

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

● 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 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
582 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted
or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-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 years, 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 appointments
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 burden of unnecessary
litigation, promote job security, and uphold the
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)
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 583

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

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 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
584 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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.
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 585

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

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 1st 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 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 8th June, 2017 passed by the Division Bench cannot be
sustained and is set aside and the judgment of the learned Single
Judge dated 20th 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 22nd 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 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.
586 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 22nd July, 2005 i.e. before 1st April, 1993.
80. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
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 Association15, 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 8th 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 20th
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 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

15 Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-association”.
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 587

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

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 dated 27th 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 1st 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 other post retiral benefits is
based upon Office Memoranda issued by the Government of Assam,
including O.M. No. FMP.48/83/40 dated 10th August, 1983; O.M. No
PPG(P)196/92/35 dated 12th September, 1996; and O.M. No PPG(P)
196/92/61 dated and 6th 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
588 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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.
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 589

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

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 8th 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
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 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 8th 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.
590 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
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 19th
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 10th 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 manner similar to regular employees, but
pensionary benefits have not been extended to them. In a meeting
dated 22nd 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 8th January, 2024 and 22nd 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
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 591

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

taken on 22nd September, 2023. During the pendency of the writ
petition, another meeting was held on 15th 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 developments, the
High Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 10th May,
2024 on the ground that the issue stood concluded by an earlier
Division Bench decision in State of Assam v. Upen Das16 (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 19th June, 2024, which is the subject matter of challenge in
the present appeal.
104. Since the judgment dated 8th 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 19th 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 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.

Result of the case: Civil Appeal No(s). 4514, 4516, 4515, 4517 and
4518 of 2025, allowed; Civil Appeal No(s). 4519,
4520 and 4523 of 2025, disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey

16 2017 SCC OnLine Gau 360