The Supreme Court of India on May 21, 2026, delivered a significant ruling, reaffirming the constitutional guarantee of equality by directing the State of Assam to regularise muster roll and work-charged employees who were arbitrarily denied benefits despite being similarly situated to thousands already regularised under a 2005 government policy.

A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside a 2017 Gauhati High Court judgment, asserting that the State could not treat “equals unequally” and withhold benefits due to clerical errors or administrative lapses. The ruling mandates that the left-out workers be granted regularisation and all consequential benefits, including pensionary dues, within one year.

What was announced

The Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered in a batch of eight civil appeals, including the lead case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. The State of Assam, directed the Assam government to regularise the services of muster roll and work-charged employees who were engaged before April 1, 1993, and had been in continuous service. The Court found that these employees were indistinguishable from the approximately 30,000 workers whose services had already been regularised following a Cabinet decision by the State of Assam on July 22, 2005. The exclusion of the petitioners was attributed to administrative discrepancies, clerical errors, or omissions in records for which the workers bore no responsibility, according to the Court.

The Bench restored the relief originally granted by a Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court in 2013, which had been overturned by a Division Bench in 2017. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the State, as a “model employer,” was expected to act fairly and consistently, particularly towards low-paid workers who had served for decades.

Why it matters

This ruling holds significant implications for thousands of long-serving muster roll and work-charged employees in Assam, who have toiled for decades in various government departments without the security and benefits of regular employment. By upholding the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ensured that administrative lapses or clerical mistakes on the part of the State cannot be used to deny legitimate benefits to eligible workers. The decision will ensure that these employees receive pay fixation in the regular scale, continuity of service, and crucial pensionary and post-retiral benefits, bringing much-needed financial stability and dignity in their later years.

The directive for the State to create supernumerary posts where necessary underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring the practical implementation of its order, preventing further delays in regularisation. This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of vulnerable workers and ensuring that government policies are implemented without discrimination.

Background

The issue of regularising muster roll and work-charged employees in Assam has a long history, dating back to the 1980s when the State began engaging these workers to meet growing manpower requirements in sectors like construction, road maintenance, and public works. An early attempt at regularisation came on September 23, 1983, when the State Cabinet decided that muster roll workers who had completed fifteen years of service would be regularised as Grade-IV employees.

However, the implementation of such policies remained inconsistent. In 1995, an Office Memorandum issued by the Chief Secretary directed all departments to regularise work-charged and muster roll workers engaged before April 1, 1993. Subsequent circulars in 1998 and 2000 reiterated these directions due to non-compliance by many departments. This led to a proliferation of writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court seeking regularisation.

A pivotal development occurred on July 22, 2005, when the State Cabinet took a fresh decision to regularise work-charged and muster roll workers engaged before April 1, 1993, who were in continuous service. Pursuant to this decision, the government created approximately 5,892 work-charged grade posts and 25,069 Grade-IV posts, leading to the regularisation of nearly 30,000 workers. Despite this, several eligible workers were left out of the regularisation process due to administrative oversights, prompting them to seek judicial intervention.

The State government had previously issued an Office Memorandum in 2012, which halted further regularisation of such workers. A Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court had quashed this 2012 OM and directed the State to regularise eligible workers. However, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision in 2017, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), which generally prohibits regularisation of casual workers not appointed against sanctioned posts.

The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, clarified that the Umadevi ruling could not be mechanically applied to defeat legitimate claims arising from a consciously framed and partially implemented State policy. The Court emphasised that the appellants’ claim was based on the principle of parity under Article 14 and the completion of an executive policy, rather than seeking fresh regularisation outside a policy framework.

Key details

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. The State of Assam (2026 INSC 523) specifically directs the State of Assam to:

  • Treat the appellants as regularised in service under the Cabinet decision dated July 22, 2005.
  • Grant regularisation from the same date on which similarly placed 30,000 employees received the benefit.
  • Identify and verify eligible appellants who were engaged prior to April 1, 1993, and had rendered continuous service.
  • Create supernumerary posts wherever necessary to facilitate their regularisation.
  • Extend all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay in the regular scale, continuity of service, pensionary benefits, and other post-retiral dues.
  • Complete the entire regularisation exercise, including payment of arrears, within a period of one year from the date of the judgment.

The Court also clarified that work-charged employees constitute a distinct class, and any adverse observations made against them by the Gauhati High Court without proper adjudication would not prejudice their independent claims for pensionary and post-retiral benefits.

Reactions

Legal experts have lauded the Supreme Court’s decision as a victory for the principles of natural justice and equality in public employment. “This judgment is a strong affirmation that the State cannot selectively implement its own policies and deny benefits to a section of employees on technical grounds, especially when others in the same class have already been regularised,” said a senior advocate familiar with service law, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It sends a clear message to all state governments to act as model employers and uphold constitutional mandates.”

Representatives of employee associations in Assam expressed relief and satisfaction. “For years, many of our members have been fighting for their rightful regularisation, facing uncertainty and financial hardship,” said a spokesperson for the All Assam Muster Roll and Work-Charged Employees Association. “This Supreme Court ruling brings an end to their long struggle and ensures they receive the benefits they earned through decades of dedicated service.”

What’s next

The Assam government is now mandated to implement the Supreme Court’s directives within one year. This will involve a comprehensive exercise to identify and verify all eligible muster roll and work-charged employees who were engaged before April 1, 1993, and were left out of the 2005 regularisation drive. The State will need to create necessary supernumerary posts and process all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and pension. Employees and their associations will closely monitor the State’s compliance with the judgment, ensuring timely and fair implementation of the Court’s order.

Sources & References