Assam employees left out of 2005 regularisation due to administrative lapses entitled to pension benefits, Gauhati HC rules

The connected appeals concerned Muster Roll and Work-Charged employees of the State of Assam who had been engaged before 01.04.1993, served continuously for several decades, received regular pay scales, increments, revised pay, leave and GPF benefits, and performed perennial governmental functions.

The State Cabinet had decided on 22.07.2005 to regularise eligible Muster Roll and Work-Charged employees engaged before the cut-off date, pursuant to which approximately 30,000 employees were regularised.

The appellants in WA Nos. 156/2025, 163/2026, 142/2026 and 294/2024, and the respondents in WA Nos. 57/2026 and 392/2015, were allegedly omitted from that exercise because of administrative or clerical errors, despite satisfying the eligibility conditions; in some cases, departmental authorities subsequently acknowledged the omission and recommended regularisation.

The learned Single Judges denied relief, principally relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, Upen Das v. State of Assam, Ujala Narzary v. State of Assam and other decisions.

WA No. 17/2026 concerned the widow of a Work-Charged Section Assistant appointed on 20.06.1998, after the 01.04.1993 cut-off date. He served continuously for approximately 20 years, received regular pay and increments, and died without formal regularisation. Her claim for family pension was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed by relying on Ujala Narzary.

Whether employees engaged before 01.04.1993, who were otherwise covered by Assam’s 22.07.2005 regularisation policy but were omitted solely because of administrative lapses, were entitled to equal treatment, regularisation and consequential pensionary or retiral benefits.

Whether the principles in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam applied to both Muster Roll and Work-Charged employees, or were confined to Muster Roll employees.

Whether the principles against judicially directed regularisation in Uma Devi and related authorities barred relief where the State had already implemented its own regularisation policy for similarly situated employees.

Whether the widow of an employee appointed after 01.04.1993 could claim regularisation or family pension under the same policy, or required consideration of an independent statutory, constitutional or other enforceable right.

The Court applied Article 14 of the Constitution, holding that once the State formulates and substantially implements a policy for an identifiable class, it cannot arbitrarily exclude similarly situated persons because of administrative omissions.

It relied on Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam, 2026 INSC 523, which held that left-out employees covered by Assam’s pre-01.04.1993 policy framework could seek completion of the existing regularisation exercise and consequential benefits, rather than invoke a fresh or impermissible regularisation scheme.

The Court distinguished Uma Devi and M.L. Kesari, explaining that their restrictions on regularisation did not defeat an Article 14 claim based on selective implementation of an existing State policy.

It also relied on the doctrines of legitimate expectation, administrative fairness, consistency and the State’s obligation to act as a model employer.

Prem Singh, Rajkaran Singh and Vinod Kumar were treated as supporting the proposition that long, uninterrupted service with regular pay and institutional integration cannot be disregarded solely because of the employee’s original Work-Charged nomenclature.

However, the Court recognised that not every Work-Charged employee automatically acquires a right to regularisation or pension merely by length of service; claims outside the policy framework must be independently adjudicated.

The Court found that the employees in WA Nos. 156/2025, 163/2026, 142/2026 and 294/2024, and the respondents in WA Nos. 57/2026 and 392/2015, satisfied the material conditions of the 22.07.2005 policy: they had entered service before 01.04.1993, continued uninterruptedly, performed perennial governmental work, received regular employment-related benefits, and were similarly situated to thousands of employees already regularised.

Their exclusion was attributable to departmental mistakes rather than ineligibility. Accordingly, denying them regularisation and pensionary consequences would amount to arbitrary and unequal implementation of the State’s own policy, contrary to Article 14 and the ratio of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee.

The Court rejected the State’s reliance on Uma Devi, holding that the present claims were not requests for a new judicially created regularisation scheme, but demands for equal implementation of an existing and substantially implemented Cabinet policy.

WA No. 17/2026 was materially different because the employee had been appointed in 1998, after the policy cut-off date. Since his claim did not fall within the Sukhendu Bhattacharjee framework, the Court set aside the dismissal only to enable the Single Judge to examine whether any independent statutory, constitutional or other enforceable right existed, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

The concerned deceased, retired and serving employees were directed to be treated as members of the category of similarly situated left-out Muster Roll/Work-Charged employees covered by the Cabinet decision dated 22.07.2005.

The authorities were directed to undertake regularisation, including creation of supernumerary posts where necessary, and to calculate and release consequential family pension, pensionary, retirement and other terminal benefits, with the entire exercise to be completed within one year of receipt of the certified judgment.

WA No. 17/2026 was disposed of by setting aside the Single Judge’s judgment and restoring the writ petition for fresh consideration of any independent legal entitlement; all factual and legal questions were kept open.

No order as to costs was made.