The Supreme Court on May 21, 2026, directed the Assam government to regularise muster roll and work-charged employees who were similarly situated to those already absorbed under a government policy, reaffirming the constitutional guarantee of equality. The apex court instructed the state to identify eligible employees, create necessary posts, and grant consequential service benefits within one year.

This landmark ruling by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta impacts potentially thousands of temporary workers in Assam, addressing a long-standing grievance and clarifying that the state cannot deny regularisation benefits to employees on account of administrative lapses or clerical omissions, especially after having extended such benefits to a large cohort.

What was announced

The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated May 21, 2026, in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State Of Assam and Others, set aside a June 8, 2017, Division Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court. The apex court directed the Assam government to regularise muster roll and work-charged employees who were engaged prior to April 1, 1993, and who were similarly placed to the approximately 30,000 workers already regularised under the state’s July 22, 2005, Cabinet decision.

The Court ruled that the exclusion of these employees violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law. It clarified that the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) could not be mechanically invoked to defeat legitimate claims arising from a consciously implemented state policy. The directive mandates the state to identify all eligible employees, create supernumerary posts if required, and grant them all consequential benefits, including pay fixation in the regular scale, continuity of service, and pensionary benefits on par with those already regularised. The entire exercise must be completed within one year from the date of the judgment.

Why it matters

The Supreme Court’s decision is significant for numerous employees in Assam who have served for decades under temporary designations, performing regular governmental functions. By upholding the principle of equality, the ruling ensures that the state, as a “model employer,” acts fairly and consistently, especially towards low-paid workers. The Court emphasised that once a policy decision is taken to benefit a defined class, it must be applied uniformly to all who satisfy the prescribed conditions.

This judgment provides a crucial clarification regarding the application of the Umadevi ruling, distinguishing between illegal and irregular appointments. It underscores that long and continuous service is a relevant consideration, and the state cannot use administrative lapses or clerical omissions as a basis to deny benefits to a subset of employees when a policy has already been implemented for a larger group. Furthermore, the Court noted that work-charged employees constitute a distinct class with independent claims for pensionary and post-retiral benefits, which were not properly adjudicated by the High Court.

Background

The practice of engaging muster roll workers in Assam dates back to the 1980s, primarily to meet manpower requirements for construction, road maintenance, and various public works across the state. Over the years, the state government introduced several measures to address the status of these temporary employees. On September 23, 1983, the State Cabinet decided to regularise muster roll workers who had completed fifteen years of service as Grade-IV employees.

A crucial cut-off date of April 1, 1993, was established for the engagement of work-charged and muster roll workers eligible for regularisation. An Office Memorandum issued by the Chief Secretary in 1995 directed all departments to regularise such workers engaged before this cut-off date. Subsequent circulars in 1998 and 2000 reiterated these directions due to slow implementation across departments.

The issue gained significant momentum with a Cabinet decision on July 22, 2005, which again resolved to regularise work-charged and muster roll workers engaged before April 1, 1993, who had remained in continuous service. Following this decision, the Assam government created thousands of Grade-IV and work-charged posts, leading to the regularisation of approximately 30,000 workers.

However, a substantial number of similarly situated employees were allegedly excluded from this regularisation process due to clerical errors, omissions in records, and other administrative lapses. These left-out workers initiated legal proceedings, with a Single Judge Bench of the Gauhati High Court initially allowing their claims for regularisation. The state government’s 2012 Office Memorandum, which halted further regularisation, was also challenged. However, a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court reversed the Single Judge’s decision in 2017, citing the Supreme Court’s Umadevi judgment and arguing that workers not appointed against sanctioned posts were not entitled to regularisation. This led the aggrieved workers to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) recently raised concerns over the fiscal sustainability of the Assam government in its report for the 2024-25 fiscal year, highlighting increasing debt load, high committed expenditure, and limited capital investment. The CAG report, tabled in the Assembly on May 25, 2026, noted that the state’s revenue and fiscal deficits were not contained within target levels, indicating a need for greater financial discipline.

Key details

  • Judgment Date: May 21, 2026
  • Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
  • Case Name: Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State Of Assam and Others
  • Eligibility Cut-off Date (Engagement): Prior to April 1, 1993
  • Policy for Regularisation: Assam Cabinet decision dated July 22, 2005
  • Number of Employees Already Regularised: Approximately 30,000
  • Implementation Deadline: Within one year from the judgment date
  • Benefits to be Granted: Pay fixation, continuity of service, and pensionary benefits

What’s next

The Assam government is now mandated to initiate a comprehensive exercise to identify all muster roll and work-charged employees who meet the eligibility criteria as per the July 22, 2005, Cabinet decision and the Supreme Court’s directives. This will involve verifying their engagement dates and continuous service. The state must also take steps to create the necessary posts, including supernumerary ones if required, to facilitate the regularisation of these employees.

The process, including the grant of all consequential service benefits, must be completed within the stipulated one-year timeframe. The implementation of this order will likely be closely monitored by the affected employees and various labour organisations, ensuring adherence to the Supreme Court’s mandate for fair and equitable treatment.

Quick FAQs

Who are muster roll and work-charged employees?

Muster roll employees are typically daily-wage workers engaged by government departments for various tasks, often on a temporary or ad-hoc basis. Work-charged employees are also temporary staff whose wages are charged to specific works or projects, particularly in departments like Public Works. Both categories often perform duties of a regular and perennial nature for extended periods.

What does “regularisation” mean in this context?

Regularisation refers to the process of converting temporary or ad-hoc employment into permanent, regular service. This grants employees security of tenure, fixed salary scales, and full-fledged service benefits, including pension, gratuity, and other post-retiral benefits, which are typically denied to temporary staff.

Why was the Supreme Court involved?

The Supreme Court intervened after a group of employees, who were similarly situated to others already regularised under a 2005 state policy, were denied benefits due to administrative errors. The Gauhati High Court’s Division Bench had previously ruled against these employees, prompting them to appeal to the apex court to ensure their right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Sources & References

Source: Mondaq Employment Law Update – June 2026