Regularisation Cannot Be Denied Solely Because Initial Appointment Was Not Against Sanctioned Post: Supreme Court

In a major development, the Supreme Court on Thursday (May 21) held that the mere fact that workers were initially appointed on a temporary basis and not against sanctioned posts would not, by itself, disentitle them from seeking regularisation under the principles laid down in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.

The Court observed that where employees have rendered continuous service for decades in departments discharging regular governmental functions, they would still be entitled to consideration for regularisation, regardless of the fact that their initial appointment was not against the sanctioned post.

Setting aside the Gauhati High Court's Division Bench judgment, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the batch of appeals filed by the employees who were temporarily engaged on muster rolls in various departments of Government of Assam but denied regularisation of service despite rendering the regular nature of services for more than a decade.

“…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).”, the court observed.

“…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.”, the court added.

The Court also criticized the State of Assam for denying them the benefit of regularisation, merely because their initial engagement was not against the sanctioned post, as held in Uma Devi (supra). The Court said that the State Government cannot discriminate between the similarly placed employees, upon finding that, except for the Appellants, the other 30,000 similarly situated employees were granted the benefit of regularisation by the State through a Cabinet policy decision.

“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.”, the court observed.

The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Jaggo v. Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1032, observing that “the practice of retaining employees for decades under deceptively titled designations, while simultaneously extracting regular work integral to the administration, has been disapproved consistently.”

Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Equal Pay for Equal Work / Regularization — Parity in Service benefits - The State Government framed a policy in 2005 to regularize Work Charged and Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993, under which approximately 30,000 workers were regularized - The appellants, who were similarly situated, engaged prior to the cut-off date, and had rendered continuous service for decades, were excluded due to clerical errors and administrative lapses on the part of the State - Held, the State cannot extend a benefit to one large group and deny it to a smaller group within the same identifiable class without demonstrating a valid distinction - Equality does not allow selective or partial implementation of a policy - Exclusion of the appellants is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14. [Relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1; State of Karnataka & Others v. M.L. Kesari & Others, (2010) 9 SCC 247; Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan, (1998) 7 SCC 66; Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99; Paras 60 - 78]

Service Law — Regularization — Scope of Umadevi Judgment - The State contended that post the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, no regularization can be effected for employees not initially appointed against duly sanctioned posts - Held, Umadevi cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier or a mechanical shield to justify prolonged, exploitative engagements of a temporary/ad-hoc nature where employees have continuously performed perennial, essential, and recurring functions of the State for decades -Distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments must be maintained. Long and continuous service is a highly relevant consideration. [Paras 73 – 76]

Service Law — Model Employer — Principle of Approbate and Reprobate - The State repeatedly gave solemn undertakings before the High Court to frame a policy to regularize the left-out eligible workers, but subsequently resiled by citing Umadevi as a legal embargo and issuing a restrictive Office Memorandum in 2012 - Held, the State, as a model employer, bears a heightened constitutional obligation to act with probity, fairness, candor, and consistency - It cannot constantly give undertakings before a constitutional court and then resile from them on narrow technical grounds - The State cannot invoke the principle of approbate and reprobate to avoid its obligations. [Paras 37, 66 – 72]

Administrative Law — Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - Policy decisions of the State coupled with formal undertakings before the High Court gave rise to a legitimate expectation in the minds of left-out workers that their cases would be considered fairly - Although legitimate expectation does not create an absolute vested right, it is firmly rooted in the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 - Policy statements cannot be applied selectively or disregarded unfairly. [Paras 68 – 70]

Administrative Law — Separation of Powers — Executive Authority - Regularization is an executive function falling within the domain of policy and administration - Courts do not grant prior approval to executive actions - The action of the State in seeking prior permission from the High Court to implement its own validly passed 2005 Cabinet decision amounted to an unwarranted surrender of its executive authority. [Paras 31, 71, 72, 88-95]

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed.

Cause Title: SUKHENDU BHATTACHARJEE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS (with connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Goswami, Sr. Adv Mr. Siddhartha Jha, AOR Mr. Kartik Jha, Adv. Ms. Nitika Sud, Adv. Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Sadhana Madhavan, Adv. Ms. Kavana Rao, Adv. Mr. D. P. Singh, Adv. Ms. Anchal Kanthed, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv. Mr. Seema Sharma, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. B K Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. R B Phookan, Adv. Ms. Neha Tandon, Adv. Mr. Gautam Talukdar, AOR Ms. Tapasya Kakaty, Adv. Mr. Nilim Sharma, Adv. Mr. Subhra Jyoti Sharma, Adv. . Mr. Gaurav Shukla, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Ankit Roy, AOR Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv. Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv. Mr. Aditya Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Mrinalini Ramesh, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Mr. Piyush Vyas, Adv. Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv. Mr. Riddhi Bose, Adv. Mrs. Rishi Agarwal, Adv. Mrs. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Mrs. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Mr. Bharadwaj S., AOR Mr. Manish Raghav , AOR Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv. Ms. Anisa Jain, Adv. Ms. Sangita Tahbildar, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR Mr. B.K Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR Mr. Saksham Garg, Adv. Mr. Jyotirmoy Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Nilim Sarma, Adv.