Sukhendu Bhattacharjee & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Ors.

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. 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 Supreme Court Reports [2026] 6 S.C.R.

541 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 Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State of Assam and Others 542 [2026] 6 S.C.R. 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 Supreme Court Reports [2026] 6 S.C.R.

543 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 Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v.

The State of Assam and Others 544 [2026] 6 S.C.R. 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: Supreme Court Reports [2026] 6 S.C.R. 545 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