State Can't Selectively Deny Regularisation To Similarly Placed Employees: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that regularisation, where permissible in law, is an executive function falling within the domain of policy and administration. It said the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier to justify prolonged engagement of temporary or ad hoc employees, particularly where they have been performing essential and recurring functions of the state for years.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments must always be kept in mind. It observed that long and continuous service is a relevant consideration and that the state, as a model employer, has 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," the Bench said.

Can the state selectively deny regularisation benefits to similarly placed employees?

Court answered in the negative, holding that Article 14 of the Constitution does not permit selective implementation of a policy.

Also Read| Regularised Staff’s Past Service Counts for Pension: SC

It observed that if two sets of employees are similarly placed in terms of the date of engagement, nature of duties, length of service and eligibility under a declared policy, the state cannot extend the benefit to one group while denying it to another 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," the Bench said.

Court made these observations while allowing an appeal filed by Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and others against a June 8, 2017 judgment of the Gauhati High Court. The high court's division bench had set aside a single judge's order directing the regularisation of the appellants and the grant of consequential benefits.

The appellants had been engaged as work charged/muster roll workers in different departments of the Government of Assam.

Why did the Supreme Court order regularisation of the Assam muster roll workers?

The Bench noted that there was no dispute that the appellants had been engaged much before April 1, 1993 and had continuously discharged their duties for a prolonged period.

It found that their case was indistinguishable from nearly 30,000 work charged and muster roll workers whose services were regularised pursuant to the Assam Cabinet decision dated July 22, 2005.

Also Read| Supreme Court Orders Regularisation Of IT Dept Casual Workers from 2006

According to the Court, the appellants were left out of the regularisation exercise because of inadvertent mistakes, clerical errors and administrative discrepancies on the part of the state. They could not be denied the benefit of the Cabinet decision for reasons not attributable to them.

The Bench further held that although the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not create a vested right, it is firmly rooted in the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness flowing from Article 14.

It pointed out that the state itself had framed the 2005 policy to regularise work charged and muster roll workers engaged before April 1, 1993 and had implemented it for nearly 30,000 employees. Since the appellants also belonged to the same category and fulfilled the prescribed conditions, there was no distinguishing feature to justify denying them the benefit.

Court emphasised that the state, as a model employer, is under a higher constitutional obligation to ensure that its actions are just, reasonable and non-arbitrary.

It also noted that repeated undertakings given by the state before the high court, coupled with the implementation of the Cabinet decision for thousands of similarly situated workers, gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the appellants too would receive the same benefit.

"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," the Bench observed.

Court further said that repeatedly giving undertakings before a constitutional court and later resiling from them does not comport with the standards expected of a model employer.

Also Read| Citing Rajdharma and Bhagavad Gita, Punjab & Haryana HC Says State Cannot Keep Workers in ‘Endless Precarity’

"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," the Bench said.

What did the Supreme Court say about the Umadevi judgment?

Rejecting the state's contention that the decision in Umadevi barred regularisation of employees not appointed against sanctioned posts, the Bench said it was "unable to accept such a sweeping proposition in the facts of the present case."

It reiterated that Umadevi cannot be treated as a blanket prohibition where employees have rendered long years of continuous service and are otherwise covered by a valid policy decision for regularisation.

Allowing the appeal, Court directed that the appellants be treated as regularised in terms of the Assam Cabinet decision dated July 22, 2005, from the same date on which the similarly placed 30,000 employees were granted the benefit.

It further directed the state of Assam to identify and verify the eligible appellants and, wherever necessary, create supernumerary posts to facilitate their regularisation.

Court said that upon regularisation, the appellants would be entitled to all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay in the regular scale, continuity of service, pensionary benefits and other post-retiral benefits on the same terms as those extended to the 30,000 similarly situated employees.

Case Title: Sukhendu Bhattacharjee And Others Vs The State of Assam And Others

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Date of Judgment: May 21, 2026