Regularization claims cannot ignore long service

The Supreme Court has set aside the Gauhati High Court’s judgment that had denied regularization and consequential benefits to a group of Assam Muster Roll workers. The appeals arose from a long administrative history in which the State had repeatedly considered regularization of Work Charged and Muster Roll workers through cabinet decisions and office memoranda.

The Court noted that the State of Assam had engaged Muster Roll workers since around 1980 to meet manpower requirements for construction, maintenance and development work. A Cabinet decision dated 23 September 1983 had resolved that Muster Roll workers with 15 years or more of service would be regularized as Grade-IV employees. A communication dated 15 March 1984 then indicated that Muster Roll workers in the Public Works Department and other engineering departments who had completed 15 years of continuous service were to be regularized from 1 August 1984.

The record also showed that no structured scheme or guidelines were framed to implement that decision. In 1995, the Chief Secretary issued an office memorandum recording that despite earlier instructions, no meaningful action had been taken for regularization. That memorandum reiterated that departments should take steps for early regularization of workers engaged prior to 1 April 1993, subject to proper justification and consultation with the Finance Department.

The judgment explains that the dispute before the Court concerned the effect of this long administrative background and the State’s sustained use of such workers. The Court observed that in matters involving long-standing administrative arrangements, executive action must conform to constitutional standards of fairness and consistency. Where the State has derived the benefit of prolonged service, its later stance must be examined for reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.

The immediate challenge was to a common judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 8 June 2017, which had reversed the Single Judge’s direction granting regularization and consequential benefits. The Supreme Court also dealt with connected matters involving pensionary claims. In one such matter, the Court noted that the High Court had dismissed the writ petition and writ appeal by relying on an earlier Division Bench decision in State of Assam v. Upen Das. Since that earlier decision had been set aside in the present batch, the later High Court order could not stand.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment dated 19 June 2024 in the pension-related appeal and held that the appellants are at liberty to agitate their claims before the appropriate authority or forum in accordance with law and the applicable policy framework.

The appeals were disposed of by a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Practical takeaway: where the State has long relied on Muster Roll workers and issued regularization-related communications, courts will test later refusals against fairness, consistency and the governing policy framework.