Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam 2026 INSC 523 - Regularizations - Undertaking Before Courts - Executive Decisions
Practice and Procedure- Undertakings given by State Authorities- Constantly giving undertakings before a constitutional Court and thereafter resiling from them does not comport with the standards expected of a model employer. An undertaking recorded by a Court is not a casual statement, but is a solemn representation on the basis of which judicial orders are passed. The State cannot approbate and reprobate. It cannot, on the one hand, secure time and indulgence from the Court on the assurance that a policy will be implemented and, on the other, avoid implementation by citing precedents that were already in existence at the time the undertakings were furnished. (Para 67)
Regularization - Regularization, where permissible in law, is an executive function. It falls within the domain of policy and administration. Umadevi judgment cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier to justify prolonged and continued engagements of a temporary or ad hoc nature, especially where the employees have been discharging essential and recurring functions of the State - the distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments must be kept in view, that long and continuous service is a relevant consideration, and that the State, as a model employer, is under a constitutional obligation to act with fairness, consistency and reasonableness. The practice of retaining employees for decades under deceptively titled designations, while simultaneously extracting regular work integral to the administration, has been disapproved consistently.(Para 76)
Legitimate Expectation - Though legitimate expectation does not create a vested right, it is firmly rooted in the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness that flows from Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 68)
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Executive Decisions - Courts do not grant prior approval to executive decisions. The role of the Court is confined to judicial review, that is, to examine whether a policy or action is constitutionally valid, fair and reasonable. It is not for the Court to authorise the executive to exercise powers which already vest in it. (Para 71)
Constitution of India - Article 14- If two sets of employees stand on the same footing in terms of date of engagement, nature of duties, length of service and eligibility under a declared policy, the State cannot extend a benefit to one large group and deny it to the smaller group without demonstrating a valid distinction. Equality does not allow selective or partial implementation of a policy. Once a policy decision is taken to benefit a defined class, it must be applied uniformly to all who satisfy the prescribed conditions. (Para 60)
Case Info
Case Information
Case name:Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. State of Assam and Others (with connected Civil Appeals 4515–4520, 4523 of 2025)
Neutral citation:2026 INSC 523
Coram:Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Judgment date:21 May 2026 (New Delhi)
Caselaws and Citations Referred
- Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 124
- State of Karnataka and Others v. M.L. Kesari and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 247
- Jitendra Kalita and Others v. State of Assam and Others, 2006 (2) GLT 654
- Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
- Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221
- Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735
- Pawan Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2026 INSC 156
- Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99
- Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (citation not fully set out in text, but expressly referred)
- National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan, (1998) 7 SCC 66
- Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association v. National Textile Corporation Ltd., (2022) 17 SCC 79
(Plus repeated references to the Gauhati High Court decision in State of Assam v. Upen Das, 2017 SCC OnLine Gau 360, which is the impugned judgment.)
Statutes / Laws and Instruments Referred
- Constitution of India
- Article 14 (equality and non‑arbitrariness)
- Article 16 (public employment)
- Article 136 (Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction – context)
- Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969
- Rule 31 and its proviso (used to support creation of supernumerary posts for pension)
- Assam Financial Rules and PWD Code
- As the framework recognizing work‑charged and muster roll engagements
- Assam Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2005
- Cited in the State’s 22 July 2005 communication as a constraint for future engagements
- Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964
- Referred while describing protections available to work‑charged employees
- Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (service law framework for work‑charged staff)
- Various Government of Assam Office Memoranda and Cabinet decisions (treated as executive policy/law in context):
- Cabinet decision dated 23 September 1983 (regularisation after 15 years)
- O.M. No. ABP 176/91/Pt‑1/188 dated 20 April 1995 (“1995 O.M.” – cut‑off 1.4.1993)
- Clarification O.M. dated 13 October 1995
- O.M. dated 11 October 1995 (ban on further work‑charged/muster roll engagement post 1.4.1993)
- Circular dated 29 August 1998 (No. ABP. 30/98/10)
- Circular dated 3 November 2000 (No. ABP. 30/98/144)
- Cabinet decision and Finance (EC‑II) Department order dated 22 July 2005 (No. FEC(II)1/2005/66 – creation of 5,892 work‑charged and 25,069 Grade‑IV posts; central to the case)
- Office Memorandum dated 31 July 2010 (Pension & Public Grievances – evidencing c. 30,000 regularisations)
- Office Memorandum dated 16 June 2012 (“2012 O.M.” – stopping further regularisation)
- Pension‑related O.M.s for temporary/ work‑charged employees (mentioned in work‑charged association part):
- O.M. No. FMP.48/83/40 dated 10 August 1983
- O.M. No. PPG(P)196/92/35 dated 12 September 1996
- O.M. No. PPG(P)196/92/61 dated 6 September 2003
Three‑Sentence Brief Summary
The Supreme Court held that muster roll and work‑charged employees of Assam engaged before 1 April 1993, who were left out of the State’s 22 July 2005 Cabinet‑approved regularisation (under which about 30,000 similarly placed workers were regularised), are entitled to the same benefit, as denying them regularisation is arbitrary and violates Article 14. It rejected the State’s reliance on Umadevi to block relief, stressing that the case was about equal treatment under an already‑implemented policy and about the State’s duties as a model employer, including honouring undertakings and avoiding exploitative, long‑term “temporary” engagements. The Court restored the Single Judge’s order, directed regularisation (with creation of supernumerary posts where necessary) and full consequential monetary and pensionary benefits for eligible appellants, clarified that work‑charged employees form a distinct class whose pension claims are not foreclosed, and allowed similarly affected muster roll workers to pursue pension claims afresh.