State cannot deny regularisation to similarly placed employees: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that the State cannot selectively deny regularisation benefits to one group of employees while extending it to others who are similarly situated, as it would violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that regularisation, where permissible under law, is an executive function falling within the domain of policy and administration.

The court clarified that its 2006 judgment in the Umadevi case cannot be used as a blanket barrier to deny regularisation in cases involving long and continuous service, particularly when employees have been performing essential and recurring duties 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 bench said.

The court strongly disapproved the practice of retaining employees for decades under temporary or ad hoc designations while extracting regular work from them. “Such a practice has been consistently disapproved,” it pointed out.

This significant verdict is expected to have a bearing on similar cases involving long-serving temporary and contractual employees across the country.

Referring to Article 14, the bench emphasised that if two sets of employees are identical in terms of date of engagement, nature of duties, length of service, and eligibility under a declared policy, the State cannot grant benefits to a large group while denying them to a smaller group without any 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 court said.

The May 21, 2026 ruling came on a plea filed by Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and other muster roll workers of the Assam government. These workers had challenged the Gauhati High Court’s division bench order of June 8, 2017, which had set aside a single judge’s direction for their regularization.

The appellants were engaged as Work Charged/Muster Roll employees in various departments much before the cut-off date of April 1, 1993, and had rendered continuous service for decades.

In 2005, the Assam Cabinet took a decision to regularise such workers engaged prior to April 1, 1993. Pursuant to this, nearly 30,000 similarly placed workers were regularised. However, the present appellants were left out due to clerical errors, inadvertent mistakes, and administrative lapses on the part of the State.

The court held that the appellants’ position was in no way distinguishable from those who were regularised.

It noted that the State’s policy decision, its substantial implementation, and repeated undertakings given before the High Court had created a legitimate expectation among the appellants.

“Once a Cabinet decision had been taken and implemented in major proportions, and undertakings given before a constitutional court, the State was expected to act in furtherance of its declared intent,” the bench said.

The court further observed that the State cannot “approbate and reprobate” — it cannot give solemn undertakings before the court and later resile from them. On the State’s argument relying on the Umadevi judgment, the bench said it was unable to accept such a sweeping proposition in the facts of this case.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed that the appellants be regularised in terms of the July 22, 2005 Cabinet decision with effect from the same date as the other 30,000 similarly placed employees.

The State of Assam has been asked to identify and verify the eligible appellants and create supernumerary posts, if necessary, to facilitate their regularisation.

They shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits, including pay fixation in the regular scale, continuity of service, and pensionary benefits on par with the others.