Article 14 | State Cannot Arbitrarily Exclude Similarly Situated Workers from Regularization Policy : SC

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the State cannot selectively implement its own policy for regularization of long-serving temporary workers, denying benefits to those identically placed but excluded due to administrative lapses. This judgment anchors the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution, holding that equal treatment is mandatory when a policy is applied to a defined class.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellants, Muster Roll and Work Charged workers in the State of Assam, were engaged in public works, road maintenance, and departmental services since before 1st April, 1993. Despite rendering continuous service for over two decades, they were excluded from a State Cabinet decision dated 22nd July, 2005, which regularized approximately 30,000 similarly situated workers. Their exclusion stemmed from clerical errors, inadvertent omissions, and administrative failures - not from any fault of their own.

Key Facts

• The State of Assam began engaging Muster Roll workers from 1980 for construction, maintenance, and field supervision.
• On 23rd September, 1983, the State Cabinet decided to regularize Muster Roll workers with 15+ years of service as Grade-IV employees.
• A communication dated 15th March, 1984, confirmed the intent to regularize workers in Public Works and Engineering Departments.
• No formal scheme was framed to implement the 1983 Cabinet decision.
• On 20th April, 1995, the Chief Secretary issued an Office Memorandum (1995 O.M.) directing departments to regularize workers engaged prior to 1st April, 1993.
• On 11th October, 1995, the State banned new engagements of such workers after 1st April, 1993.
• On 29th August, 1998, and 3rd November, 2000, further circulars reiterated the policy and emphasized regularization based on seniority and continuous service.
• On 22nd July, 2005, the State Cabinet approved creation of 5,892 Work Charged posts and 25,069 Grade-IV Muster Roll posts for regularization.
• Approximately 30,000 workers were regularized under this policy.
• The appellants, though engaged before 1st April, 1993 and serving continuously, were omitted from the list due to spelling errors, misclassification, or administrative oversight.
• Multiple writ petitions were filed before the Gauhati High Court seeking regularization.
• On 20th December, 2013, the Single Judge quashed the State’s 2012 O.M. and directed regularization.
• On 8th June, 2017, the Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s order, holding regularization impermissible under Umadevi.
• The appellants challenged this reversal before the Supreme Court.

Procedural History

• 1980: State begins engaging Muster Roll workers.
• 23.09.1983: Cabinet decision to regularize workers with 15+ years of service.
• 15.03.1984: Chief Secretary’s communication on regularization of PWD workers.
• 20.04.1995: 1995 O.M. directs regularization of workers engaged before 01.04.1993.
• 11.10.1995: Ban on new engagements after 01.04.1993.
• 29.08.1998: Circular reiterating regularization policy.
• 03.11.2000: Circular emphasizing regularization by seniority.
• 22.07.2005: Cabinet decision to create 30,961 posts for regularization.
• 14.11.2005: Chief Secretary files affidavit before High Court confirming Cabinet decision.
• 17.05.2006: Full Bench in Jitendra Kalita declares 1995 O.M. invalid but does not address 2005 Cabinet decision.
• 22.08.2005: Finance Department issues confirmation for creation of posts.
• 31.07.2010: Pension Department issues O.M. on implementation of regularization.
• 16.06.2012: 2012 O.M. issued, halting all further regularization.
• 20.12.2013: Single Judge of Gauhati High Court quashes 2012 O.M. and directs regularization.
• 08.06.2017: Division Bench of Gauhati High Court reverses Single Judge’s order.
• 28.03.2023: Civil Appeals filed before Supreme Court.
• 21.05.2026: Supreme Court delivers judgment.

The Parties' Positions

Appellants (Muster Roll and Work Charged Workers): Argued they were identically placed with the 30,000 regularized workers - same engagement date, same duties, same length of service. Their exclusion was due to State’s administrative failure, not legal disqualification. Relied on Article 14, legitimate expectation, and the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. Cited M.L. Kesari, Jaggo, Shripal, and Dharam Singh.

Respondent (State of Assam): Contended that all appellants were engaged without sanctioned posts and therefore ineligible under Umadevi. Argued that Cabinet decisions cannot override constitutional requirements. Asserted that undertakings before the High Court were legally void once Umadevi barred regularization. Claimed that granting relief would open floodgates and violate public employment norms.

Relief Sought

The appellants sought:

• Quashing of the Division Bench’s order dated 8th June, 2017.
• Restoration of the Single Judge’s order dated 20th December, 2013.
• Regularization in service with effect from the date the 30,000 workers were regularized.
• Fixation of pay in regular scale.
• Continuity of service.
• All pensionary and post-retiral benefits.
• For deceased appellants: payment of arrears to legal heirs.
• For retired appellants: notional regularization and recalculated pension.
• Completion of the entire exercise within one year.

The Legal Issue

Can the State deny regularization to workers who were engaged prior to a cut-off date, served continuously for decades, and were identically placed with those already regularized under a Cabinet policy, merely because they were omitted due to administrative error, and on the ground that they were not appointed against sanctioned posts under Umadevi?

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant/Petitioner

The appellants relied on M.L. Kesari to argue that the one-time regularization exercise under Umadevi is not exhausted merely because the State acted partially. They emphasized that the 2005 Cabinet decision was a valid executive policy, implemented for 30,000 workers, and that excluding others on clerical grounds violates Article 14. They cited Jaggo and Bhola Nath to show that long, continuous service performing essential State functions must be recognized, regardless of initial designation. They argued that the State’s undertakings before the High Court created a legitimate expectation, and its subsequent reversal through the 2012 O.M. amounted to approbate and reprobate.

For the Respondent/State

The State contended that Umadevi prohibits regularization of employees not appointed against sanctioned posts, and that the appellants’ engagement was illegal, not merely irregular. It argued that Cabinet decisions cannot override constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 16. It claimed that undertakings given before the High Court were legally unsustainable once Umadevi barred such regularization. It warned that granting relief would create financial burdens and encourage mass litigation.

The Court's Analysis

The Court rejected the State’s rigid interpretation of Umadevi as a blanket bar to regularization. It held that the appellants were not seeking regularization under the Umadevi exception but were asserting their right to parity under the State’s own 2005 Cabinet policy. The Court emphasized that once a policy is adopted and implemented for a defined class, it must be applied uniformly. Differential treatment without rational basis violates Article 14.

"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 Court noted that the appellants’ exclusion was not due to any deficiency on their part but due to administrative lapses - misspelled names, omission from lists, and lack of coordination. The State had admitted before the High Court that hundreds of eligible workers were left out and had committed to framing a policy for their regularization. The 2012 O.M., issued after these undertakings, was held to be an arbitrary reversal that undermined judicial trust and administrative consistency.

The Court further held that the State, as a model employer, is constitutionally bound to act with fairness, candour, and non-arbitrariness. It cited Bhola Nath and Jaggo to underscore that prolonged service in essential State functions cannot be dismissed on technical grounds. The distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments, as clarified in Umadevi, was reaffirmed, but the Court held that the appellants’ engagement was not illegal - it was a long-standing, accepted mode of service.

The Court also rejected the State’s argument that judicial directions to implement a Cabinet policy amount to encroachment on executive power. It clarified that courts do not authorize policies - they review their legality. Once a policy is validly adopted and acted upon, the State cannot evade its implementation by invoking precedents that were already in force when the policy was made.

The Verdict

The appellants succeeded. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment dated 8th June, 2017 and affirmed the Single Judge’s order dated 20th December, 2013. The appellants shall be regularized in service with effect from the date the 30,000 similarly placed workers were regularized. They are entitled to fixation of pay in the regular scale, continuity of service, and all pensionary and post-retiral benefits on the same terms. For retired appellants, notional regularization shall be granted with arrears calculated from the date of superannuation. For deceased appellants, arrears shall be paid to legal heirs. The entire exercise, including payment of arrears, shall be completed within one year of this judgment. The benefit is limited to those engaged before 1st April, 1993.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Policy Implementation Must Be Uniform

• Practitioners must argue that any State policy affecting a defined class of employees must be applied without discrimination, even if implementation was incomplete.
• Exclusion due to clerical errors, administrative oversight, or poor record-keeping cannot justify denial of benefits to similarly placed workers.
• Courts will treat selective implementation of a policy as a violation of Article 14.

Long Service Trumps Formal Designation

• Employees performing essential, recurring duties for over a decade - even as "Muster Roll" or "Work Charged" workers - are entitled to equitable treatment.
• The label of "temporary" or "casual" cannot override the reality of continuous, indispensable service.
• Umadevi does not bar regularization where the State itself created the conditions of service and later adopted a policy to regularize.

Undertakings Before Courts Are Binding

• When the State gives categorical undertakings before a constitutional court, it cannot later resile by citing pre-existing legal barriers.
• Such conduct amounts to approbate and reprobate and undermines judicial authority.
• Practitioners should cite such undertakings as evidence of legitimate expectation and administrative estoppel.

Model Employer Doctrine Applies

• The State is held to a higher standard as a model employer.
• Exploitative practices, such as retaining workers for decades under temporary labels while denying benefits, are constitutionally impermissible.
• Courts will not permit the State to use Umadevi as a shield to avoid its own policy commitments.