Gauhati High Court
Smti Geeta Barman vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 29 July, 2026
Page No.# 1/61
GAHC010028022025
2026:GAU-AS:10366
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/156/2025
SMTI GEETA BARMAN
WIFE OF LATE SUTKU BARMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PADMABIL P.O-
GOSSAIGAON P.S-GOSSAIGAON DIST-KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM. PIN- 783361.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ASSAM
SACHIBALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
ASSAM SACHIVALAYA
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROAD CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-3.
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
KOKRAJHAR RURAL ROADS DIVISION
P.O. KOKRAJHAR
PIN - 783361 DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
5:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GOSSAIGAON ROADS SUB-DIVISION
P.O. GOSSAIGAON
PIN- 783361 DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/61
6:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
ASSAM SACHIVALAYA
DISPUR
GUWAHATI - 781006.
7:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL A AND E
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-781029
ASSA
Linked Case : WA/17/2026
SMT MANDRILA BASUMATARY
WIFE OF LATE BIDANG BASUMATARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-
TENGAPARA P.O- KOKRAJHAR MB
WARD NO. 5
P.S- KOKRAJHAR DIST-KOKRAJAR
ASSAM. PIN-783361
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ASSAM SACHIBALAYA
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT.
ASSAM SACHIBALAYA
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (BUILDING)
CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 3
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT.
KOKRAJHAR
PIN 783370
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
Page No.# 3/61
ASSAM.
5:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT.
KOKRAJHAR BUILDING SUB DIVISION
P.O. KOKRAJHAR
PIN 783370
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM.
6:THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF FINANCE
ASSAM
SACHIBALAYA
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006
7:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E)
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI 781029
ASSAM.
------------
Linked Case : WA/392/2015
THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
VERSUS
RATAN BASUMATARY and 9 ORS.
S/O BHUSHAN BASUTMOTARY
VILL. JYOTISHPUR
P.O. KONPATANI
DIST. DHEMAJI
ASSAM.
2:BHUPEN DAS
S/O MAYA RAN DAS
VILL. CHOUDHURYKHAT
P.O. and P.S. CHAYGAON
DIST.KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Page No.# 4/61
3:DADHIRAM BORO
S/O KULARAM DORO
VILL. NO. MULONGSELEK
P.O. JONAI
DIST. DHEMAJI
ASSAM.
4:PUNIRAM CHANGMAI
S/O PUHRI CHANGMAI
VILL.RONGPURIA
P.O. SIMEN CHAPORI
DIST. DHEMAJI
ASSAM.
5:PURNANDA DUTTA
S/O DHARMA DUTTA
VILL. PANIGAON
P.O. GOVINDAPUR
DIST. DHEMAJI
ASSAM.
6:DILIP CHANDRA BORDOLOI
S/O LATE NIKON BORDOLOI
VILL. GORMARI
P.O. SARUBARI
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM.
7:LARU BORKAKOTI
S/O LATE SHIVARAM BORKAKOTI
VILL. UJARAON
P.O. UPOR UJARGAON
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.
8:CHANDRA BORA
S/O LAE KON BORA
VILL. POHUCHUA
P.O. DERGAON
DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM.
9:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOT. OF ASSAM
HANDLOOM TEXTILE AND SERICULTURE DEPTT.
ASSAM
DISPUR
Page No.# 5/61
GUWAHATI-6
10:THE DIRECTOR
SERICULTURE
ASSAM
GUWAHATI-22
————
Linked Case : WA/57/2026
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
ASSAM SECRETARIAT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
2: SECRETARY OF GOVT. OF ASSAM
IRRIGATION DEPTT.
ASSAM SECRETARIAT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006
3: CHIEF ENGINEER
DEPTT. OF IRRIGATION
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI 781003
ASSAM.
VERSUS
SRI SUJIT KUMAR SINGHA AND 6 ORS.
S/O SRI kRISHNA KUMAR SINGHA
R/O VIVEKANANDA ROAD
P.O TARAPUR
PS SILCHAR-3
DISTRICT CACHAR
ASSAM
2:MD. NIZAM UDDIN LASKAR
S/O LATE BASARAT ALI LASKAR
R/O VILL. AND P.O. GANIR GARAM
P.S. KARIGORAHA
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
Page No.# 6/61
3:MD. ABUL HUSSAIN LASKAR
S/O LATE M. ALI LASKAR
R/O VILL. AND P.O. DHANEHARI
P.S. SONAI
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
4:MD. ABDUL KHALIQUE MAZUMDER
S/O LATE MAHAMMAD UDDIN MAZUMDER
R/O VILL. AND P.O. BADRIPAR
P.S. SILCHAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
5:KANTA PRASAD ROY
R/O VILL. AND P.O. KAJIDAHAR
PART-III
P.S. SONAL
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
6:MD. SAHAJAN MAZUMDER
S/O MD. M ALI MAZUMDER
R/O VILL. AND P.O. SONABARIGHAT-I
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 06
————
Linked Case : WA/142/2026
SRI BABUL BISWAS
SON OF DINAMONI BISWAS
RESIDENT OF KALINAGAR-3
POLICE STATION- KALINAGAR
BAKORI HAWAR PT I
DISTRICT -HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN CODE-788801.
VERSUS
Page No.# 7/61
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING PHE
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PHE WATER ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHTI-36.
4:THE DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HAFLONG
DISTRICTDIMA HASAO
ERSTWHILE N.C HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL
PIN-788819.
5:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE)
N.C. HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL
HAFLONG
DISTRICT- DIMA HASAO
PIN788819.
6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHE
MAIBANG DIVISION
MAIBANG
DISTRICT- DIMA HASAO
ASSAM
PIN-788819.
7:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHE
MAIBANG DIVISION
DISTRICT- DIMA HASAO
ASSAM
PIN-788819.
8:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
Page No.# 8/61
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-29.
9:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
10:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
————
Linked Case : WA/294/2024
SAMIRAN CH DAS
S/O- LATE SUBDH CH. DAS
VILLAGE- LALAPUR PART-I
P.O.- CHANDRAPUR
P.S.- LALA
DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
P.H.E. DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
P.H.E. DEPARTMENT
HENGRABARI
Page No.# 9/61
ASSAM.
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI- 781029.
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HAILAKANDI DIVISION
ASSAM.
6:TREASURY OFFICER
HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.
————
Linked Case : WA/163/2026
LAKHISWARI BRAHMA
W/O-LATE TARANI BRAHMA
A RESIDENT OF VILL. PAVUAJHORA (SAMOGURI)
P.O. – BISMURI
P.S. – KOKRAJHAR
DIST – KOKRAJHAR
BTR
ASSAM
PIN -783370
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PWD ROADS
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD ROADS
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM -781003.
3:HE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD
Page No.# 10/61
KOKRAJHAR ROADS DIVISION.
4:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD
KOKRAJHAR RURAL ROADS DIVISION.
5:THE TREASURY OFFICER
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM 783370.
6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-781029.
————
– B E F O R E-
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the appellants : Mr. K. Das, Adv. in WA No. 17/2026
Mr. P. Nayak, Addl. AG in WA No.57/2026
& WA No.392/2015
Mr. B. Dutta, Adv. in WA No. 142/2026
Mr. S. Das, Adv. in WA No. 156/2025
Mr. M. U.Mamud, Adv in WA No.163/2026
Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, Adv in WA No.294/2024
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Borthakur. Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. Nayak, Addl. AG,
Ms. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Adv
Assisted by Ms. R Das, Adv./SC, BTC
Page No.# 11/61
Mr.R.K. Talukdar, SC, AG (A & E)
Ms. P. Chakraborty, SC, Dima Hasao
Mr. A. Banerjee, SC, Handloom & Textile
Date on which judgment was reserved : 21.07.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 29.07.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : N/A
Has the judgment been pronounced? : Yes
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Arun Dev Choudhury, J)
1. These intra-court appeals being WA Nos. 156/2025, WA
17/2026, WA 57/2026, WA 142/2026, WA 294/2024, WA
392/2015 & WA 163/2026 raise a narrow yet recurring
question concerning the legal consequences flowing from
long and uninterrupted service rendered by employees
initially engaged as Work-Charged employees and their
exclusion from the State’s policy of regularisation and
consequential benefits, while granting the benefit to similarly
situated employees.
2. Brief facts relating to Writ Appeal No. 156/2025
a) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant,
Page No.# 12/61
who is the widow of Late Sutku Barman. Her husband
initially joined government service as a Muster Roll
Worker in the Public Works Department (PWD),
Kokrajhar Rural Road Division, on 17.09.1981.
b) Later, he was upgraded to the position of Work-
Charged Chowkidar on 08.08.1996 in a vacant,
sanctioned post in the scale of pay 900-15-1005-20-
1105-E.B 20-1225-30-1435/p.m.
c) Since then, he has been paid a regular salary in
accordance with the applicable ROP Rules and has
been extended all the benefits of a Grade IV regular
employee, including General Provident Fund (GPF).
d) His service was duly recorded, and a service roll was
maintained throughout his tenure.
e) In the year 2005, the State Government introduced a
scheme, as per an Office Memorandum dated
30.09.2005, to regularise the services of Muster Roll
and Work-Charged employees who had joined before
01.04.1993.
f) More than 30,000 such employees were regularised
under this policy. However, due to what appears to be
an administrative mistake or oversight by respondent
No. 4, the departmental authority, the name of Late
Sutku Barman was inadvertently omitted from the
Page No.# 13/61
regularisation list, despite meeting all the eligibility
criteria; he was thus left out.
g) Recognising the error, respondent No. 4 later admitted
the mistake and even communicated with the
Government, requesting the posthumous
regularisation of Sutku Barman’s service so that the
appellant could be granted a family pension following
his death.
h) The appellant, having lost her husband after he had
rendered nearly 30 years of continuous service, made
multiple requests to the department to avail
pensionary benefits. When no action was taken, she
filed WP(C) No. 1177/2017 before this Court.
i) The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition,
by judgment and order dated 22.08.2024, principally
relying on the decisions of a Co-ordinate Bench in
The State of Assam Vs. Upen Das & Ors.,
reported in 2017 0 Supreme (Gau), and Ujala
Narzari Vs. State of Assam (WA 1/2022) and
also the decision of the Apex Court in State of
Nagaland Vs. Nisevi Asumi, (2022) SCC Online
SC 818.
j) Being aggrieved, the present intra-court appeal was
preferred.
Page No.# 14/61
3. Brief facts relating to WA No. 163/2026
I. The writ appeal arises out of the judgment and order
dated 06.04.2026, passed by a learned Single Judge
in WP(C) No.2353/2024, whereby the appellant’s
claim for regularisation of service and grant of retiral
benefit was dismissed.
II. The appellant Smt. Lakhiswari Brahma was appointed
on compassionate grounds on 23.11.1992 under the
PWD, Assam, following the death of her husband.
Her service was subsequently upgraded to a work-
charged Chowkidar in the regular pay scale on
24.01.1996, and she continued uninterruptedly for
more than 32 years until her superannuation on
30.11.2023.
III. Despite a recommendation for regularisation along
with other similarly situated employees, the
appellant’s service was never regularised. However,
she continued in service and was even granted
revised pay scales from time to time.
IV. Being aggrieved by the denial of regularisation, the
appellant approached the Court by filing a writ
petition, being WP(C) No. 2353/2024.
V. The writ petition was rejected on the ground that
work-charged employees are not entitled to
Page No.# 15/61
regularisation and pensionary benefits, principally
relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma
Devi reported in 2006, 4 SCC 1, as well as the
decision rendered in Upen Das (supra).
VI. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the
present appeal.
4. Brief facts relating to the Writ Appeal No.142/2026
A. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant
Babul Biswas, who initially joined government
service as a work-charged Khalasi on 01.02.1987 in
the office of the Executive Engineer (PHE), Maibang
Division, vide office order No. 136 of 1986-87.
B. Later, he was upgraded to the same position of ork-
Charged Khalasi, on a purely temporary basis,
subject to extension of service after three months,
based on the performance report of the concerned
Assistant Executive Engineer, with immediate effect.
C. Services were extended from time to time, and since
then he has been paid a regular salary in accordance
with the applicable ROP Rules. He has been granted
all the benefits of a Grade IV regular employee,
including the General Provident Fund (GPF).
D. His service was duly recorded, and a service roll was
Page No.# 16/61
maintained throughout his tenure.
E. In the year 2005, the State Government introduced a
scheme under an Office Memorandum dated
30.09.2005 to regularise the services of Muster Roll
and Work-Charged employees who had joined before
01.04.1993. More than 8,000 such employees were
regularised under this policy. However, due to what
appears to be an administrative mistake or oversight
by the Executive Engineer (PHE) or departmental
authority, the name of Babul Biswas was
inadvertently omitted from the regularisation list,
despite meeting all the eligibility criteria; he was
thus left out.
F. Recognising the error, the Executive Engineer (PHE)
later admitted the mistake and even communicated
with the Government, requesting regularisation of
Babul Biswas’s service so that the appellant could be
granted family pension. The appellant had rendered
nearly 35 years and 2 months of continuous service
and had made multiple requests to the department
for pensionary benefits, but to no avail. When no
action was taken, he was compelled to file the
WP(C) No. 229/2023 before this Court.
G. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition
by judgment and order dated 24.06.2024, principally
Page No.# 17/61
relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Uday Pratap Thakur & Anr. Vs. State of
Bihar., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 527 and
Sunita Barman Vs. Commissioner, M.P.
Housing and Infrastructure Development
Board & Ors reported in (2023) 1 SCC 570.
H. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the
present appeal.
5. Brief facts relating to the Writ Appeal No.294/2024
I. The present appeal has been filed by the
appellant Samiran Ch. Das, who initially joined
government service as a work-charged Khalasi on
10.09.1984 in the office of the Executive Engineer
(PHE), Hailakandi Division, with a scale of pay of
Rs.370/–5-420-7-490 per month.
II. Later, by another order dated 31.10.1987 issued
by the then Public Health Engineering, Hailakandi
Division, he was promoted to the position of Pump-
Operator Work-Charge at R.W Hailakandi Town
Water Supply Scheme under the Executive Engineer,
Hailakandi P.H.E. Division in the scale of pay of
Rs.410-10-470-EB-13-670 per month.
III. Services were extended from time to time, and
since then he has been paid a regular salary in
accordance with the applicable ROP Rules. He has
Page No.# 18/61
been granted all the benefits of a Grade IV regular
employee, including the General Provident Fund
(GPF).
IV. His service was duly recorded, and a service roll
was maintained throughout his tenure.
V. In the year 2005, the State Government
introduced a scheme under an Office Memorandum
dated 30.09.2005 to regularise the services of
Muster Roll and Work-Charged employees who had
joined before 01.04.1993. More than 8,000 such
employees were regularised under this policy.
However, due to what appears to be an
administrative mistake or oversight by the Executive
Engineer (PHE) or departmental authority, the name
of Samiran Ch. Das was inadvertently omitted from
the regularisation list, despite meeting all the
eligibility criteria; he was thus left out.
VI. Recognising the error, the Executive Engineer
(PHE) later admitted the mistake and even
communicated with the Government, requesting
regularisation of Samiran Ch. Das’s service so that
the appellant could be granted family pension. The
appellant had rendered nearly 36 years and 8
months of continuous service and had made
multiple requests to the department for pensionary
benefits, but to no avail. When no action was taken,
Page No.# 19/61
he was compelled to file the WP(C) No. 3733/2024
before this Court.
VII. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition by judgment and order dated 31.07.2024,
principally relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Upen Das (supra).
VIII. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the
present appeal.
6. Brief facts relating to the Writ Appeal No.57/2026
a. The State prefers this appeal.
b. The case of the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 is that
they joined as Muster Roll workers prior to
01.04.1993. While they were working as Muster
Roll employees in the Irrigation Department,
Silchar Sub-Division (I), Cachar, their services were
regularised w.e.f. 22.07.2005 by the Executive
Engineer, in terms of a Cabinet decision dated
22.07.2005; however, their names were not
included in the list approved by the Finance
Department, even though the Executive Engineer
regularised the services of the writ petitioners.
Subsequently, their regularisations were cancelled
by the Finance Department vide its letter dated
17.04.2008 for want of the Finance Department’s
approval.
Page No.# 20/61
c. Subsequently, the Irrigation Department vide office
order No.IGN(E)88/2008/83, dated 07.12.2009,
abolished the six personal posts against which the
Executive Engineer, Silchar Division (I), Silchar, had
regularised the writ petitioners, and a disciplinary
proceeding against the Executive Engineer and
other officers and staff involved has been initiated
by the Irrigation Department.
d. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated
25.06.2024, allowed the writ petition directing the
respondent authorities to consider the case of the
petitioners as the petitioners were entitled to be
regularised in terms of the policy of the State at
that relevant time, considering that services of
some of the petitioners were irregularly
regularized/dropped from the list of regularization
at the relevant time within a period of three
months.
e. The State, being aggrieved by the impugned
judgment and order dated 25.06.2024, passed by
the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4431/2008,
has preferred the present writ appeal.
7. Brief facts relating to the Writ Appeal No.392/2015
I. The State prefers this appeal.
Page No.# 21/61
II. The case of the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 is that
they joined as muster roll workers prior to
01.04.1993. While they were working as Muster
Roll employees in the Directorate of Handloom
Textile and Sericulture Department, their services
were regularised w.e.f. 22.07.2005 by the
Executive Engineer, in terms of a Cabinet decision
dated 22.07.2005; however, their names were not
included in the list approved by the Finance
Department, even though the Handloom Textile
and Sericulture Department regularised the
services of 1127 Muster Roll Workers of Handloom
Textile & Sericulture Department.
III. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners preferred
writ petition being WP(C) No.2121/2001 which was
disposed of vide order dated 07.08.2006; however,
in spite of disposal of the writ petition, the
petitioners were still left aggrieved resulting in
filing of a contempt petition being Cont.Cas(C)
No.140/2007.
IV. However, during pendency of the contempt petition,
the Commissioner & Secretary, Finance
Department filed a review petition being Review
Pet No.45/2007, for reviewing the judgment and
order dated 7.8.2006 passed in WP(C) 2121/2006,
stating that the petitioners were not entitled in
Page No.# 22/61
terms of the decision rendered in Uma Devi
(supra) however, the aforesaid Review Petition was
dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2013, on the
ground that Uma Devi (supra) case is not
applicable in the present cases the Govt. has
decided to regularize the services of Muster Roll
workers and merely because there was inaction of
the authority the petitioners should not suffer and
accordingly the Cont petition was disposed of with
a direction to the respondents to carry out the
order dated 07.08.2006 passed in WP(C)
No.2121/2006.
V. The State, being aggrieved by the order of the
review petition, passed by the learned Single
Judge, has preferred the present writ appeal.
8. The learned counsels for the appellants, referring to the
provision of Rule 31 of the Rules, 1969, more particularly,
the proviso thereto, contend that in circumstances like the
present one, a declaration is required to be made that the
husband of the appellant shall be entitled to pension and for
the purpose, the authorities may be directed to make such a
declaration. It is further contended that similar prayers were
granted by a learned Single Judge in Kabiram Rajbangshi
Vs. the State of Assam & Ors., reported in 1997 1 GLT
589.
Page No.# 23/61
9. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prem
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2019) 10
SCC 516, Jaswant Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India and
Ors., reported in [(1979) 4 SCC 440]; Rajkaran Singh
and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024
INSC 621, and Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. In Union of
India, reported in 2024 INSC 332, the learned counsels
contend that the long service of the appellant’s husband,
with all the benefits of a regular employee, suggests a level
of performance and integration into the governmental
structure that belies the classification as a work-charge
employee. Such performance and duties are similar to those
of regular employees; the distinction between a work
charged employee and a regular employee is, therefore, in
the present case, more formal than substantive. The learned
counsels further contend that, when, by the very nature of
employment, work charged employees should not continue
for long and, therefore, the continuation of service till
superannuation with all the benefits of a regular employee,
there cannot be any differentiation.
10. The further case of the appellants is that their claim is
covered by the determination made by the Supreme Court in
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee Vs. State of Assam , reported
in 2026 INSC 523.
11. Per contra, Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General
representing the State in the Public Works Department,
Page No.# 24/61
argues that in view of the determination made in the Uma
Devi (supra), Jitendra Nath Kalita Vs. State of Assam
reported in 2006 (2) GLT 654, Upen Das (supra) and
Ujala Narzary (supra), Courts are barred from granting
regularisation or consequential service benefits to muster
roll or work-charged employees. He further argues that a
pension, being an incidence of substantive appointment,
cannot be directed in exercise of the power of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more
particularly when the grant of pension is regulated under a
statutory policy which does not permit the grant of pension
to a work-charged employee, irrespective of length of
service.
12. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Official
Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and Others reported in
(2008) 10 SCC 1, the learned Additional Advocate General
argues that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in no unambiguous
manner, laid down the proposition that Uma Devi (supra) is
binding on all the Courts, including the Apex Court, until a
larger Bench overrules the same. According to him, the
Courts cannot direct the regularisation of service; therefore,
the Court has no power to direct the grant of benefits
payable to regular employees to such work-charged
employees. In support, he places reliance on The State of
Manipur Vs. Ksh. Moirangninthou Singh & Ors.,
reported in 2007 2 Supreme Court Cases 261.
Page No.# 25/61
13. He further relies on Uday Pratap Thakur (supra), and
argues that the decision in Prem Singh (supra) was limited
to that case.
14. The learned Additional Advocate General also places reliance
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of
Odisha and Others Vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena reported
in 2025 SCC Online SC 385, contending that the Court
cannot tweak the statutory mandate to grant pensionary
benefits to work-charged employees.
15. Mr. Nayak argues that the determination made in Sukhendu
(supra) is applicable only to Muster Roll employees, to the
exclusion of Work Charged employees, as held at paragraph
Nos. 82 to 93 of Sukhendu (supra).
16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and have
perused the materials available on record, and the
authorities pressed into service.
17. For brevity, the appellants in WA Nos. 156/2025, 17/2026,
142/2026 & 163/2026 and respondents No. 1 to 6 in WA No.
57/2026 are referred to as the Employees.
18. The undisputed record reveals that the employees in the
present cases were appointed before 1.4.1993 and
continued to serve, as recorded earlier in this judgment. The
record further reveals that the appointments were with a
definite scale of pay and throughout their career, they have
Page No.# 26/61
been granted annual increment like other regular employees;
GPF accounts were opened and also maintained; as and
when there was revision of Pay Rules, they were granted the
benefit of the same with grade pay and pay band which are
recorded and reflected in their Service Book/Service Roll;
due leaves were granted to them like other regular State
employees; the scale of pay shows crossing of efficiency bar
etc.
19. It is also not disputed before this Court that the employees
belonging to the category of employees engaged before the
cut-off date of 01.04.1993, adopted by the State itself, were
otherwise similarly situated to those employees whose
services were regularised pursuant to the Cabinet decision
dated 22-07-2005. Their exclusion from the regulatory
exercise did not arise from any disqualification attributable to
them, but rather from omissions and an administrative lapse
on the part of the authorities.
20. Before proceeding further, let us briefly record the policy
history of the State of Assam regarding the regularisation of
work-charged and muster roll workers, as well as the
litigation history relating thereto.
21. It is not in dispute that, to meet the increasing workforce
requirements for construction, maintenance of public
infrastructure, and execution of developmental works across
various departments, the government of Assam has, since
the early 1980s, engaged a large number of Muster Roll and
Page No.# 27/61
Work-Charged workers.
22. Recognising the prolonged and continuous nature of such
engagement, the State Cabinet, by its decision dated 23
September 1983, resolved to regularise Muster Roll workers
who had completed 15 years of continuous service and
work-charged employees who had completed 5 years of
service.
Although such a policy decision was communicated to the
concerned departments, no comprehensive scheme or
guidelines were framed for its implementation, resulting in
uncertainty regarding its execution.
23. In an attempt to operationalise the earlier policy, the
Government issued an Office Memorandum dated 28 April
1995, directing all departments to undertake regularisation
of Work-Charged and Muster-Roll workers engaged before
1st April 1993, after consultation with the Finance
Department.
The said office memorandum was followed by further
communications issued in October 1995, clarifying that no
fresh engagement would be made after the cut-off date and
that the benefit would be confined to those who continued
in service as of 28 April 1995.
Thereafter, successive circulars were issued in 1998 and
2000 reiterating the Government’s policy and repeatedly
instructing the authorities to accord priority to the
Page No.# 28/61
regularisation of eligible workers by taking into account their
seniority and length of continuous service.
24. During the same period, conflicting judicial pronouncements
emerged regarding the regularisation of such employees,
leading to a reference of the issue to a full Bench of this
High Court in Jitendra Nath Kalita (supra).
25. During the pendency of the said Reference, the State
Cabinet, by a decision dated 22 July 2005, once again
resolved to regularise the services of Work-Charged and m
26. Muster-Roll workers who had been engaged before 1 April
1993 and had continued in uninterrupted service,
irrespective of the length of service.
27. Consequent thereto, the Finance Department sanctioned the
creation of 5,892 work-Charged posts and 25,069 Grade IV
posts for implementation of the Cabinet decision, resulting in
the regularisation of nearly 30,000 employees.
28. Subsequently, the full Bench in Jitendra Nath Kalita
(supra) held that the office memorandum dated 28 April
1995 did not constitute a valid policy for regularisation and
declared that no further regularisation could be effected
under the said office memorandum, while leaving
undisturbed the regularisation already made.
The full Bench neither examined nor pronounced upon the
validity of the subsequent Cabinet decision dated 22 July
2005.
Page No.# 29/61
Significantly, the Full-Bench took cognizance of the decision
dated 22nd July 2005 and opined that such a cabinet
decision itself fortified the view of the Bench that the
impugned notification dated 20.04.1995 lacked the support
of any valid policy decision.
29. Although the Cabinet decision dated 22 July 2005 was
implemented in respect of nearly 30,000 eligible employees,
several work-charged and Muster Roll workers, despite being
similarly situated and meeting the eligibility criteria, were
excluded from the exercise due to clerical errors, omissions
of names, and other administrative lapses.
30. Aggrieved thereby, numerous writ petitions were instituted
before the High Court seeking extension of the same benefit
on the ground that they had also been engaged before 1
April 1993 and had rendered long and uninterrupted service.
31. During the pendency of such proceedings, including Ramani
Deka Vs. State of Assam [WP(C) 1271/2006], the
State Government itself acknowledged before the High Court
that a considerable number of eligible workers had been left
out of the earlier regularisation exercise and repeatedly
assured the Court that an appropriate policy would be
framed for their regularisation. An affidavit filed by the Chief
Secretary indicated that draft policies had already been
prepared to regularise such left-out workers by creating
personal posts for them. Similar assurances were also
furnished in other pending proceedings.
Page No.# 30/61
32. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid undertakings, the
State thereafter sought leave of the High Court to implement
the proposed policy on the ground that the decision of the
Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (supra) created a legal
impediment.
33. Upon such permission being declined by the High Court, the
State issued an office memorandum dated 16-6-2012,
deciding that no further regularisation of work-charged,
Muster-Roll or similarly situated employees would be
undertaken, even if they had been engaged before 01-04-
1993 and had rendered continuous service.
34. The validity of the said office memorandum dated 16-6-2012
was challenged by the affected workers before the learned
Single Judge, who, by judgment dated 20-12-2013, quashed
the Office Memorandum and directed regularisation of
eligible employees engaged before 01-04-1993 together with
consequential service benefits.
35. The learned Single Judge inter alia held that work-charged
and Muster Roll engagements were recognized modes of
employment under the applicable service framework; that
the Cabinet decision dated 22-7-2005 had remained valid
and had already been implemented in respect of nearly
30,000 similarly situated employees; that the petitioners had
been excluded only because of administrative lapses; and
that the State was bound by its repeated undertakings given
before the High Court.
Page No.# 31/61
The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition,
placed reliance on the exception carved out in para No. 53 of
Uma Devi (supra), and the subsequent explanation
rendered in State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari reported
in 2010 09 SCC 247.
36. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred an intra-court appeal
before the Division Bench in Upen Das (supra).
37. By the judgment dated 8-6-2017 passed in Upen Das
(supra), the Division Bench reversed the decision of the
learned single judge, principally holding that the petitioners
had not been appointed against sanctioned posts; that they
did not satisfy the exceptions carved out in paragraph 53 of
Uma Devi (supra); and that after the pronouncement in
Uma Devi (supra), the State could not continue or extend
regularization by creation of posts notwithstanding the
earlier Cabinet decision dated 22-7-2005.
38. Such decisions were challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court
by two sets of petitioners, namely: (1) Sukhendu
Bhatacharjee and Ors Vs. State of Assam in Civil
Appeal No.4514/2025 and (2) All Assam Work
Charged Employees Association in Civil Appeal
No.4519/2025, with a limited grievance that in Upen Das
(supra) the High Court proceeded to treat work charged
employees at par with Muster Roll and Casual workers and
thereby foreclosing their entitlement to pension and other
consequential benefits, without the Association being made
Page No.# 32/61
a party.
39. At this stage, it becomes necessary to notice the common
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhendu
Bhattacharjee (supra) was rendered in the context of the
same State policy framework covering Muster Roll and Work
Charged employees in Assam.
40. In Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra), the Supreme Court
comprehensively examined the 1983 Cabinet Decision; the
Office Memorandum issued from time to time; the Cabinet
Decision dated 22.07.2005; the regularisation of
approximately 30,000 similarly situated employees; and the
correctness of Upen Das (supra).
41. Significantly, each of these executive decisions pertained
jointly to both Work-Charged and Muster Roll employees.
The Finance Department’s concurrence, reproduced by the
Supreme Court in its Judgment in Sukhendu
Bhattacharjee (supra), separately sanctioned the creation
of grade-IV posts for Work-Charged and Muster Roll workers,
as well as supernumerary posts for retired and deceased
employees of both categories.
42. The foundational factual matrix before the Supreme Court,
therefore, expressly included work-charged employees on
account of the State’s common Policy of regularisation of
Muster Roll and Work-Charged employees, and the exclusion
of benefits to some eligible persons of these two classes of
Page No.# 33/61
workers.
43. After recording the factual backgrounds, the Supreme Court,
then, identified the true controversy by recording two
undisputed foundational facts, namely, that the employees
had been engaged before 1 April 1993 and had rendered
uninterrupted service for decades, and that they were
identically situated with nearly 30,000 Work-charged and
Muster Roll employees whose services had already been
regularised pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated 22nd of
July 2005.
44. The Court further noted that the exclusion of the appellants
from the benefit of regularisation was not attributable to any
ineligibility on their part, but solely to administrative lapses,
clerical mistakes and inadvertent omissions committed by
the State.
45. Proceeding on this factual premise, the Court reframed the
controversy by holding that the case did not concern the
general permissibility of regularisation of employees
appointed against non-sanctioned posts, but rather the
constitutional validity of denying equal treatment to a small
class of employees who admittedly belonged to the very
class of Muster Roll and work-charged that had already been
extended the benefit of an existing and substantially
implemented Government policy.
46. The Court thereafter undertook an elaborate analysis of
Page No.# 34/61
paragraph 53 of Uma Devi (supra) and its subsequent
exposition in M. L. Kesari (supra).
It held that the Division Bench in Upen Das (supra) had
fundamentally erred in treating the left-out employees’ claim
as one arising under the limited one-time regularisation
exception carved out in Uma Devi (supra).
According to the Supreme Court, the employees were not
invoking the exceptional jurisdiction recognised in paragraph
53 of Uma Devi (supra); rather, they sought enforcement of
a Cabinet policy framed before the pronouncement in Uma
Devi (supra), which the State had already acted upon in
favour of approximately 30,000 similarly situated employees.
Consequently, it was held that the source of their entitlement
was not the one-time exercise contemplated in Uma Devi
(supra), but the constitutional guarantee of equality under
Article 14, which required the State to extend the identical
treatment to all members of the same class.
Building upon this distinction, the Court laid down that once
the State voluntarily formulates a policy identifying a
particular class of employees for enforcement of a
benefit and subsequently implements that policy,
every person falling within that class acquires a
constitutional right to equal treatment under Article
14.
The State cannot selectively implement such a policy by
Page No.# 35/61
extending its benefit to one section of eligible employees
while excluding another section solely because of
administrative inefficiency or clerical mistakes, it was
concluded.
47. According to the Supreme Court, it also does not permit
partial implementation of an executive policy or hostile
discrimination among persons who are admittedly in
identical circumstances.
It was in this context that the Court relied on Pawan
Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in 2026 INSC 156 to
reiterate that employees left out due to oversight or
administrative error cannot be denied the same benefit
already granted to others in a similar position.
Thus, the Court treated the claim of those work-charged and
Muster Roll employees as one seeking completion of an
incomplete governmental exercise rather than initiation of a
fresh scheme of regulation.
48. After holding so, the Supreme Court nevertheless examined
the State’s conduct from a broader public law perspective.
It observed that after implementing the Cabinet Decision in
favour of nearly 30,000 employees, the State repeatedly
assured the Court, through affidavits signed by the Chief
Secretary and other senior officers, that the cases of the
remaining eligible workers were under active consideration
and that an appropriate policy for their regularisation would
Page No.# 36/61
be framed shortly. Acting upon these unequivocal
representations, the High Court issued consequential
directions. However, after obtaining such indulgence, the
State completely altered its stand by issuing the office
memorandum dated 16 June 2012, relying upon Uma Devi
(supra) as a legal impediment.
49. The Supreme Court held that such conduct offended the
fundamental principles of administrative fairness, consistency
and good governance.
Having consciously formulated a policy, substantially
implemented it, and repeatedly represented before a
constitutional Court that the remaining workers would also
be considered, the State could not subsequently defeat its
own policy through a contrary executive instruction. Such
conduct, according to the Supreme Court, was incompatible
with constitutional governance.
50. The Court further emphasised that the State’s constitutional
obligation is qualitatively different from that of an ordinary
employer. Relying on Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand
reported in 2026 INSC 99, it reiterated that the State, as a
model employer, must act with fairness, consistency, and
candour, particularly when dealing with employees occupying
the lowest strata of public service.
It held that repeated undertakings given before
constitutional Courts cannot subsequently be ignored, and
Page No.# 37/61
the State cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate
by first securing judicial indulgence through solemn
assurances and thereafter resiling from them on grounds
that were always available to it.
51. The Supreme Court then invoked the doctrine of legitimate
expectation as an additional Constitutional facet of Article
14.
It held that the Cabinet decision, its substantial
implementation, coupled with repeated assurances given
before the High Court, legitimately induced the excluded
Muster Roll and Work charged employees to believe that
their cases would also be considered in the same exercise.
It was held that, though legitimate expectation may not
create an enforceable vested right, arbitrary departure from
such consistent governmental representations would
nevertheless render executive action vulnerable to judicial
review under Article 14.
Relying upon National Buildings Construction
Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan & Ors, reported in AIR
1998 SUPREME COURT 2779, the Court concluded that
the State could not selectively abandon its earlier
representations after having acted upon them in favour of
thousands of similarly situated employees.
52. The Court also clarified an important constitutional principle
relating to the separation of powers by holding that the
Page No.# 38/61
executive was never required to obtain prior permission from
the High Court to implement its own Cabinet decision.
The formulation and implementation of a policy of
regularisation falls squarely within the executive domain. At
the same time, the role of the Constitutional Court is
confined to judicial review of such executive action; it was
held.
Consequently, the Court opined that the State had
committed a constitutional error in virtually surrendering its
executive authority by seeking leave of the High Court to
implement its own policy after having already resolved to do
so.
Finally, the Court rejected the State’s contention, describing
it as a rigid and mechanical interpretation of Uma Devi
(supra).
53. Drawing support from the recent decisions in Jaggo v.
Union of India reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826,
Sripal vs. Nagarnigam reported in 2025 INSC 144,
Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
2025 INSC 998, and Bhola Nath (supra), the Supreme
Court observed that Uma Devi was intended to prevent
unconstitutional backdoor appointments and not to legitimise
the prolonged exploitation of temporary employees who had
continuously performed perennial governmental functions.
It reiterated that Uma Devi (supra) cannot serve as a
Page No.# 39/61
blanket defence to defeat claims founded on equality,
fairness, and non-arbitrariness, particularly where the State
itself had consciously regularised an overwhelming majority
of similarly situated employees pursuant to its own policy.
54. The Supreme Court finally declared that once the State itself
evolves and substantially implements a policy framework for
the regularisation of Muster Roll and work charged
employees, exclusion of similarly situated employees without
a rational basis would attract the vice of arbitrariness under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
55. The Supreme Court further held that the State cannot
approbate and reprobate simultaneously by continuously
utilising employees for perennial governmental work over
decades, while denying corresponding service consequences
solely on the basis of technical classification.
56. Significantly, the Supreme Court clarified that Uma Devi
(supra) cannot be mechanically construed as an absolute
embargo on all forms of relief for long-serving Muster
Roll/Work Charged employees who have remained
institutionally integrated into governmental service.
57. Thus, the Court also recognised that when work
charged/muster roll employees (i) rendered uninterrupted
long service; (ii) performed a perennial governmental
function; (iii) received regular scales of pay and service
benefits; and (iv) became integrated into the regular
Page No.# 40/61
institutional framework, the State was obliged to work as a
model employer consistent with constitutional fairness.
58. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment in
Upen Das (supra) and restored the learned single judge’s
decision.
59. In the present cases, the factual position remains materially
similar.
60. The employees were admittedly engaged before the cut-off
date adopted by the State itself; they rendered
uninterrupted long service under the Department; received
regular scales of pay and other service benefits; maintained
service books and GPF accounts; and continued till death/till
superannuation while discharging perennial government
functions. Their names were admittedly left out, not due to
the employee’s fault, a fact the employer subsequently
sought to ratify.
61. Their exclusion from pensionary recognition, therefore, arises
not from any distinguishable factual circumstance but from
an administrative omission, despite long institutional
integration into government service; thus, their cases are
squarely covered by the determination in Sukhendu
Bhattacharjee (supra).
62. Significantly, the employers themselves subsequently
acknowledged that the concerned employees had been left
out despite their eligibility and recommended their
Page No.# 41/61
regularisation; consequently, the State Government
considered their cases a denial of parity, which was
admittedly not due to an absence of eligibility.
63. Though the foregoing discussions make it abundantly clear
that the principle laid down in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee
(supra) covers both the left-out categories of Muster Roll
and work-charged employees, at this stage it is necessary to
address the foundational plank of Mr. Nayak’s argument that
the decision in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra) is
confined to Muster Roll employees only. It has no application
to work-charged employees, but the determination in All
Assam Work-Charged Employees Association is
applicable.
64. Before examining Mr. Nayak’s submission that Sukhendu
Bhattacharjee (supra) has no application to work-charged
employees, it is necessary to ascertain what constitutes a
binding declaration of law under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India.
65. It is well settled that not every observation contained in a
judgment constitutes a precedent.
The binding element of a decision is its ratio decidendi,
namely the principle of law necessary for deciding the
controversy before the court.
Observations that are not necessary to determine the issue
may have persuasive value as obiter, but they do not
Page No.# 42/61
ordinarily constitute the ratio of the decision.
Equally well settled is the principle that the ratio of a
judgment is not to be culled out from one isolated paragraph
but from a reading of the judgment as a whole, having
regard to the questions involved, the facts found and the
reasoning that leads to the conclusion.
66. Applying the above principle, we are unable to accept the
submission that Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra) is
confined only to Muster Roll employees.
67. The principal controversy before the Supreme Court was
whether employees who were engaged before 01.04.1993,
who were otherwise covered by the Assam government
regularisation policy but were omitted from the
implementation of the Cabinet decision dated 22.07.2005,
could be denied regularisation and consequential benefits,
mainly because they had been left out on account of
Administrative omissions.
68. In deciding that controversy, the Supreme Court examined
the entire Assam policy framework, commencing from the
1983 Cabinet decision, the office memoranda issued from
time to time, and the Cabinet decision dated 22.07.2005, the
Finance Department concurrence creating posts for both
Work Charged and Muster Roll employees, the undertaking
given by the State before the High Court and the subsequent
decision in Upen Das (supra).
Page No.# 43/61
69. Those considerations formed the essential reasoning leading
to the conclusion that similarly situated employees who were
left out could not be denied equal treatment under Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
70. These propositions constitute the ratio decidendi of the
judgment.
71. The contention of Mr. Nayak that the judgment nevertheless
excludes work-charged employees because the claim of the
work-charged employees was dealt with in paragraphs 82 to
99, and because work-charged employees were
distinguished from Muster roll workers, is, in our opinion,
expressly answered by the Supreme Court itself as discussed
hereinabove.
72. Paragraph Nos. 82 to 99 indeed arise out of a separate
appeal preferred by the All Assam Work Charged
Employees Association, whose grievance was that the
observations made in Upen Das, i.e., “Muster Roll
Workers, Work Charged Workers and Casual Workers
are not entitled for regularisation of their services
with consequential benefits” adversely affected Work
Charged Employees. However, they were not parties before
the High Court.
73. The Supreme Court clarified that Work Charged Employees
constitute a distinct class; that the observations in Upen
Das (supra) would not prejudice their independent claims;
Page No.# 44/61
and that they would be at liberty to pursue pensionary and
other consequential benefits in accordance with law.
74. In our opinion, those observations neither overrule nor
nullify the ratio already declared in Civil Appeal No.4514 of
2025 (Sukhendu Bhattacharjee) (supra).
On the contrary, it preserves the independent rights of Work
Charged Employees while leaving the adjudication of
individual claims to the appropriate forum.
Paragraphs 82 to 99 merely reinforce those conclusions by
ensuring that the observations in Upen Das (supra) do not
operate as a bar against Work Charged Employees asserting
their independent claims.
75. The judgment itself was based throughout on the common
Policy Framework governing both Muster Roll and work-
charge employees. The historical narrative, commenting on
the 1983 Cabinet Decision, the office memorandum issued
from time to time, and culminating in the Cabinet Decision
dated 22.07.2005, uniformly refers to both categories of
employees without drawing any distinction between them.
76. A careful reading of the judgment reveals that the Supreme
Court was dealing with a separate appeal preferred by the
Work Charged Employees Association, whose grievance was
qualitatively different from that of the left-out employees
covered by the 2005 regularisation exercise.
Their concern before the Court was that the observations
Page No.# 45/61
made in Upen Das (supra), as quoted hereinabove,
operated as a complete bar against all Work Charged
Employees, including those who were not parties to the
earlier litigation and whose claims might arise on other legal,
statutory or constitutional foundations independent of the
Assam policy framework.
It is in that context that the Supreme Court recognised Work
Charged Employees as constituting a distinct class, clarified
that the observations in Upen Das (supra) would not
prejudice them and expressly left their independent claims
open for adjudication in accordance with law.
77. It ensured that the earlier observations in Upen Das (supra)
would not foreclose independent claims founded on other
statutory, legal, or constitutional bases, or on other
governing principles of law recognising long and
uninterrupted service.
78. The true import of paragraphs 82 to 99, therefore, is not
that every Work Charged Employee becomes entitled to a
pension merely by reason of long service, nor that such
entitlement is confined exclusively to those falling within the
2005 regularisation policy, but preserving the jurisdiction of
the Courts to examine such claims on their own merits,
uninfluenced by the observations contained in Upen Das
(emphasis supplied).
79. Likewise, Upen Das(supra) proceeded on the footing that
Page No.# 46/61
no enforceable rights survived after Uma Devi (supra). In
Ujala Narzary (supra) and Upen Das (supra), relief was
declined primarily on the basis of Uma Devi (supra) and the
absence of regularisation.
The correctness of that approach in the context of Assam
Muster Roll and work charged employees has now been
examined and settled by the Supreme Court in Sukhendu
Bhattacharjee (supra).
The pronouncement in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra)
has authoritatively declared that employees appointed
before 01.04.1993, who were otherwise covered by the
Assam policy framework but omitted from the regularisation
exercise due to administrative oversight, cannot be denied
regularisation and consequential service benefits merely
because similarly situated employees alone were granted
such benefits.
Since the policy was uniformly applied to both work-charged
and Muster-roll employees, the same constitutional principle
necessarily extends to both categories.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has now clarified that such left-
out employees engaged before 01.04.1993 could not be
denied regularisation and consequential service benefit
solely on technical or administrative grounds, including initial
engagement against a non-sanctioned post, where similarly
situated employees had already been regularised under the
Page No.# 47/61
same policy.
The present appeals are therefore required to be governed
principally by the ratio laid down in Sukhendu
Bhattacharjee (supra) inasmuch as their claim is not
independent but arises out of the Policy Framework adopted
by the State.
80. In our respectful opinion, properly understood, those
observations are protective in nature; they neither create an
automatic right nor extinguish one.
Consequently, the State cannot rely upon it to narrow the
ratio already declared in favour of employees covered by the
Assam policy framework, nor can it be construed as
foreclosing the possibility of other Work Charged Employees
claiming pensionary entitlement on distinct statutory or
constitutional grounds in appropriate proceedings.
81. The principles laid down in Sukhendu Bhatacharjee
(supra) constitute binding declarations under article 141 not
because the judgment concerns pensionary claims but
because it arose under the identical Assam policy framework
governing both work charged and Muster Roll employees;
the same cut-off date of 01.04.1993; the same Cabinet
Decision dated 22.07.2005; the same category of left out
employees excluded due to administrative omission; and
substantially identical constitutional objections founded upon
Uma Devi (supra). The ratio, therefore, directly governs the
Page No.# 48/61
present controversy.
82. Relying on the decision of Uma Devi (supra), Mr. Nayak,
learned Additional Advocate General, however, argues that
the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee(supra) is per-incuriam because
it ignored Uma Devi (supra). The learned counsel has
relied upon a catena of decisions and argues that the
appointments made dehors the constitutional scheme are
illegal; that regularisation cannot ordinarily be directed by
courts; and that creation of posts lies within the exclusive
domain of the executive. According to Mr. Nayak, the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra)
ignored all these settled propositions of law and therefore
does not carry any precedential value.
83. We are rather surprised that such an argument has been
advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General. The
submission betrays a fundamental misconception of the ratio
decidendi in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra). The
judgment neither revisits the principle of Uma Devi (supra)
or the other judgments relied on by the learned Additional
Advocate General; it proceeds on an altogether different
constitutional footing founded upon an existing state policy
and Article 14.
84. The argument of Mr. Nayak assumes that the decision in
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee is merely another judgment on the
permissibility of regularisation governed by the Constitution
Page No.# 49/61
Bench decision in Uma Devi (supra). Proceeding on that
premise, learned counsel has placed reliance on those
decisions reiterating those well-settled principles. With
respect, none of these propositions admit any controversy.
However, they are wholly besides the point.
85. The ratio of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra) does not rest
upon a reconsideration, dilution, or departure from Uma
Devi (supra). On the contrary, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
undertook an elaborate analysis of paragraph 53 of Uma
Devi (supra) and the decision in M. L. Kesari (supra), and
thereafter expressly held that claims of the appellants
therein did not arise under one-time regularisation
exceptions carved out. The Court categorically observed that
appellants were not invoking paragraph 53 of Uma Devi, but
were claiming enforcement of a state-specific cabinet policy
dated 22-07-2005, which had already been substantially
implemented by regularising nearly 30,000 similarly situated
employees.
86. The source of the appellant’s entitlement was thus located
not in the doctrine of regularisation, but in the constitutional
guarantee of equal treatment under Article 14.
87. Once the controversy is appreciated in its correct
perspective, the edifice of Mr. Nayak’s submission collapses.
Authorities explaining the limits of judicial power to direct
regularisation or create posts address an entirely different
legal questions.
Page No.# 50/61
88. The creation of posts had already been continuously
undertaken by the state itself, pursuant to a Cabinet
Decision dated 22-07-2005. Nearly 30,000 employees had
already been regularised under that policy. The only
question before the Supreme Court was whether a residual
class of employees admittedly falling within the very same
policy and omitted only because of administrative lapses and
clerical mistakes could be denied identical treatment. That
question was answered applying the constitutional principle
of equality, non-arbitrariness, legitimate expectation, and
fairness in state action.
89. A decision can be characterised as per-incuriam only where
it is rendered in ignorance of a binding statutory provision or
binding precedent having direct application to the issue
decided. The judgment in Sukhandu Bhattacharjee does
neither. Far from overlooking Uma Devi, the Supreme Court
devoted a substantial part of the judgment to examine Uma
Devi (supra), M. L. Keshari (supra), and subsequent
authorities such as Pawan Kumar (supra), Bhola Nath
(supra), National Building Construction Corporation
(supra), Jaggo (supra), Sripal (supra) and Dharam Singh
(supra). The correctness of the decision cannot, by stretch of
any imagination, furnish a basis for treating the judgment as
par inquirium by a division bench of a high court.
90. The submission that Sukhandu Bhattacharjee lacks
precedential force is equally misconceived. The judgment
Page No.# 51/61
undoubtedly follows earlier authorities wherever applicable.
However, it simultaneously lays down an independent
principle that where the State has itself framed and
subsequently implemented a policy conferring a benefit upon
an identifiable class of employees, Article 14 prohibits
selective implementation by excluding a small segment of
the same class on account of administrative lapses. That
principle constitutes the ratio decidendi of the judgment;
This ratio binds courts under Article 141.
91. Accordingly, the authorities relied upon by Mr. Nayak
concerning illegal appointments, absence of sanctioned
posts, and judicial restraint in directing regularisation or
creation of posts do not answer the controversy arising in
the present case.
92. Now, coming to the reliance of the State respondents upon
Nisevi Asumi (supra), the decision arose in a materially
different statutory framework concerning posthumous
regularisation under the service rules applicable in the State
of Nagaland. It did not involve the Assam-specific
regularisation framework considered in Sukhendu
Bhattacharjee (supra).
93. Similarly, the decisions in Uday Pratap Thakur arose in
materially different contexts concerning the regularisation or
validity of statutory rules. They did not involve the present
Assam Specific Policy Framework governing regular work
charged/Muster Roll employees, which was subsequently
Page No.# 52/61
considered in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra).
94. The decision in Sudhanshu Shekhar Jana (supra) arose in
the context of interpreting specific amendments to the
Odisha Pension Rules regarding the counting of pre-
regularised service for pension purposes after regularisation.
The controversy therein is materially different from the
Assam-specific framework considered in Sukhendu
Bhattacharjee (supra) and therefore does not govern the
present appeal.
95. The present judgment is confined to employees engaged
before 01.04.1993 who were otherwise covered by the
Assam policy framework and remain excluded solely due to
an administrative omission, despite their eligibility (emphasis
supplied).
Nothing contained herein shall be construed as laying down
an absolute proposition that every work-charged employee
becomes entitled to regularisation or pension merely by long
service, which is to be determined in appropriate individual
cases and before the appropriate forum, as held in the
Assam Work-Charged Employees Association.
96. Now coming to the judgments relied upon by the learned
Counsel for the employees, in Prem Singh (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised that where work-charge
employees rendered long and uninterrupted service
substantially akin to regular governmental employment, the
Page No.# 53/61
state could not deny pensionary benefits solely based on
original nomenclature. The court also noted that genuine
work-charge engagements are ordinarily project-specific and
temporary, unlike long-standing institutionalised services
extending over decades.
97. In Rajkaran Singh (supra) and Vinod Kumar (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that a long duration of
service, coupled with regular scales of pay, service benefits,
and institutional integration, may substantially dilute the
purely temporary character of the engagement.
The Court further held that where the actual course of
employment evolves over decades into one that is
substantially indistinguishable from regular governmental
service, substantive rights cannot be denied solely based on
initial nomenclature or procedural classification.
98. The principles recognised in Prem Singh (supra), Rajkaran
and Vinod Kumar (supra) reinforce the conclusion reached
in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra).
These decisions recognise that where employees continue in
service for decades, receive regular scales of pay, annual
increments, service benefits, and remain integrated into the
functioning of government, substantive rights cannot be
denied solely based on the original nomenclature of
appointment.
The emphasis of these decisions is that the substance of the
Page No.# 54/61
employment must prevail over form, where the actual course
of service demonstrates long-term integration into regular
governmental work. The admitted facts in the present case
satisfy these parameters as well.
99. In the present case, the admitted materials revealed
continuous long service; similar scales of pay; annual
increments; maintenance of the Service Book and GPF
account; and uninterrupted discharge of parental
governmental functions. The state itself, therefore,
formulated the policy to regularise the services of those
Muster Roll and Work Charged employees who were
appointed prior to the cut-off date of 1.4.1993 and were in
continuous Service.
100. The materials placed before this Court revealed that the
concerned employees were not engaged in sporadic or
genuinely project-bound assignments in the ordinary sense
of work-charge establishments. Rather, they served
continuously for extraordinarily long periods; received
regular scales of pay; earned annual increments; maintained
service books and GPF accounts; remained under the full
administrative control of the department; and continued in
service till death/superannuation while discharging perennial
governmental functions.
101. More importantly, the materials on record reveal that the
employees were otherwise similarly situated to the category
of employees regularised pursuant to the Cabinet decision
Page No.# 55/61
dated 22.07.2005 and were left out solely due to
administrative omissions attributable to the employer
authorities. The departmental authorities themselves
acknowledged such an omission and recommended
corrective measures.
102. Their cases, therefore, stand squarely covered by the
principles laid down and the directions issued in Sukhendu
Bhattacharjee (supra).
103. Once the Hon’ble Apex Court has recognised that similarly
situated left-out employees engaged before 01.04.1993 were
also entitled to regularisation, including by creation of
supernumerary posts, the denial of consequential pensionary
and retiral benefits to the present appellants cannot be
sustained.
104. The impugned judgments rendered by the learned Single
Judges in WP(C) No.1177/2017 (in WA No.156/2025), WP(C)
No.2353/2024 (in WA No.163/2026), WP(C) No.229/2023 (in
WA No.142/2026), and WP(C) No.3733/2024 in (WA
No.294/2024) therefore, calls for interference. Accordingly,
the same stands set aside; the judgments passed in WP(C)
No.4431/2008 in WA No.57/2026 and WP(C) No.2386/2008
in WA No.392/2015 are affirmed. And the following
directions are issued:
I. The husband of the appellant in WA No. 156/2025, and
the appellants in WA No. 163/2026, WA No.142/2026 and
Page No.# 56/61WA No.294/2024 and the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in WA
No. 57/2026 and respondent Nos.1 to 8 in WA
No.392/2015, shall be treated as forming part of the
category of similarly situated left-out Muster Roll/Work
charged employees covered by the Cabinet decision dated
22.07.2005.
II. The respondent authorities shall undertake consequential
exercise for regularisation, including, where necessary, the
creation of supernumerary posts, in terms of the
principles laid down and directions issued in Sukhendu
Bhattacharjee (supra).
III. In respect of deceased employees, consequential family
pension benefits, including arrears and other terminal
dues, if any, shall be calculated in favour of their legal
heirs, if any, in accordance with law.
IV. In respect of the appellant in WA No.163/2026 & WA No.
142/2026, consequential retirement and pensionary
benefits shall be recalculated and released accordingly.
V. The entire exercise shall be completed within one year of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
VI. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the State i.e., WA
No. 57/2026 & WA No.392/2015 stands dismissed with
the modifications that the direction issued hereinabove
shall also be applicable to them.
Page No.# 57/61
VII. The present directions are confined to employees
engaged before 01.04.1993 and otherwise covered by the
Assam Policy Framework considered in Sukhendu
Bhattacharjee (supra).
105. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
Writ Appeal No. 17/2026:
106. The case of the present appellant Smt. Mandrilla Basumatary
stands on a different footing. It is undisputed that her
husband entered service subsequent to the cut-off date of
01.04.1993. The brief facts of the case are as under:
a. Mandrila Basumatary, a widow of the late
Bidang Basumatary, who was working as a Work-
Charged Section Assistant under the establishment of
the Gossaigaon Public Works Department (Building)
Sub-Division against a vacant sanctioned post. He
was appointed on 20.06.1998, in pursuance of the
office order No. 128 of 1998-99, as a Work-Charged
Section Assistant temporarily in the Scale of Pay of
Rs. 1065-20-1225-30-1345-eb-30-1435-40-1635-50-
2035-60-2095/-.
b. Accordingly, he joined the service on 23.06.1998 and
worked continuously without any break for nearly 20
years until his premature death on 26.02.2018.
c. During the service period of late Bidang Basumatary,
Page No.# 58/61he received the regular Scale of Pay under the ROP
Rules, annual increments, and an enhanced Grade
Pay, all of which were properly recorded in the
Official Service Roll maintained by the Department.
d. After the death of the said employee, the appellant
approached the authority to seek the grant of family
pension, considering the length of service and the
nature of employment. Still, the authority stated that
it was unable to grant any family pension, as her
husband’s service was not formally regularised until
the date of his death.
e. However, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Kokrajhar
Building Division, submitted a fresh proposal to the
Government through the proper channel, in the
prescribed format, for posthumous regularisation of
service to provide the benefit of pension/family
pension. However, the same has not been considered
to date.
f. Assailing such a decision, the appellant filed WP(C)
No. 5026/2020.
g. By the judgment dated 28.08.2025, the learned
Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition
following the determination made in the case of
Ujala Narzary Vs. State of Assam and Ors (WA
1/2022).
Page No.# 59/61
h. Accordingly, the connected writ appeal is preferred.
107. It is undisputed that her husband entered service
subsequent to the cut-off date of 01.04.1993 and on
20.06.1998. Consequently, his case does not fall within the
policy framework which formed the basis of the decision in
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra).
108. As determined hereinabove, the relief granted in Sukhendu
was confined to employees admittedly covered by the State
policy but who had been left out from its implementation
owing to administrative lapses.
109. At the same time, while deciding the appeal preferred by All
Assam Work Charged Association, as recorded in the
previous part of this judgment, the Supreme Court clarified
that employees who do not fall within the ambit of the
aforesaid policy would be at liberty to pursue such
independent claim as may be available to them in law on the
basis of any statutory, constitutional or other enforceable
right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in our opinion, thus left
questions open for determination before the appropriate
forum.
110. The impugned judgment, however, reveals that the writ
petition came to be dismissed principally placing reliance on
Ujala Narzary Vs. State of Assam (supra), which is again
based on determination made in Upen Das (supra), more
particularly the findings that “Muster Roll Workers,
Page No.# 60/61Work Charged Workers and Casual Workers are not
entitled for regularisation of their services with
consequential benefits”.
111. The question whether the appellant possesses any
independent statutory, constitutional or other enforceable
right beyond the policy framework was not properly
considered in the impugned judgments, particularly in view
of the principle already settled in Upen Das (supra) that no
work charged or Muster Roll workers and casual workers are
entitled to regularisation with consequential benefits such as
pension. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has itself
reversed such decision and opined for adjudication of such
claim before the appropriate forum, we consider it not
appropriate to pronounce upon them for the first time in the
present intra-court appeal.
112. We therefore are of the considered opinion that the
judgment and order of the learned single judge, insofar it
relates to the present appellant, deserves to be set aside,
which is accordingly done.
113. The writ petition shall stands restored to the file of the
learned Single Judge for a fresh decision which shall also
take into consideration whether the appellant is entitled to
any relief on the basis of any statutory constitutional or
other enforceable right independent of the policy of the
State.
Page No.# 61/61
114. Liberty is granted to both sides to file such additional
pleadings and affidavit as may be considered necessary.
115. It is made clear that all questions on facts and law are kept
open and that we have expressed no opinion on the merits
of the appellant’s claim.
116. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to restore the WP(C)
No.5026/2020 to its original file and place before the learned
Single Judge as per roaster, preferably on 20.08.2026.
117. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.
118. No order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant
