Summary
The Supreme Court held that Assam Muster Roll and Work Charged workers engaged before 1 April 1993, left out by clerical lapses from the Cabinet decision of 22 July 2005 under which about 30,000 identical workers were regularised, could not be denied regularisation by relying on Umadevi. Their claim rested on parity under Article 14, and the State's 2012 O.M. reversed undertakings given to the High Court. It also clarified that Work Charged employees form a distinct class and set aside a related pension ruling.
Issues
- Whether workers engaged before 01.04.1993, excluded by clerical error from the Cabinet decision dated 22.07.2005, could be denied regularisation on the ground that they were not appointed against sanctioned posts and that Umadevi bars regularisation.
- Whether the State could, by the O.M. dated 16.06.2012, resile from its policy and from undertakings given to the High Court to regularise left-out workers.
- Whether the State needed the Court's permission to implement its own regularisation policy.
- Whether the High Court's adverse observations could bind Work Charged employees who were not heard, and whether the related denial of pensionary benefits to ferry-service Muster Roll workers could stand.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaOnce the State adopted a policy to regularise a defined class and applied it to about 30,000 workers, it had to apply it uniformly to all who met its conditions; excluding identically placed workers without a valid distinction, through its own clerical lapses, was manifestly arbitrary. Legitimate expectation arising from the policy and undertakings was also traced to Article 14. (¶¶ 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 68, 78)
Held
- Paragraph 53 of Umadevi, as explained in M.L. Kesari, is a limited prospective one-time exception; the appellants did not rely on it but on a pre-Umadevi Cabinet policy actually implemented for their class, so the Division Bench's reliance on Umadevi and M.L. Kesari was misplaced. (¶¶ 56, 57, 58, 59)
- Equals must be treated equally; where two sets of employees are alike in date of engagement, duties, length of service and eligibility under a declared policy, the State cannot extend the benefit to one and deny it to the other without a valid distinction. A policy benefiting a defined class must be applied uniformly, and exclusion caused by the State's own inadvertent errors cannot be held against the workers. (¶¶ 54, 60, 61, 62, 63)
- An undertaking recorded by a Court is a solemn representation on which judicial orders are passed; having given undertakings after Umadevi to frame a policy for left-out workers, the State could not later cite Umadevi to resile from them. The 2012 O.M. defeated the object of the 2005 Cabinet decision and was contrary to administrative fairness and the State's obligation as a model employer. (¶¶ 65, 66, 67)
- The State's policy and its undertakings gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the left-out workers would be considered; though not a vested right, legitimate expectation is rooted in the fairness and non-arbitrariness flowing from Article 14. (¶¶ 68, 69, 70)
- Regularisation, where permissible, is an executive function; courts do not give prior approval to executive decisions, and seeking the Court's leave to implement its own policy amounted to a surrender of executive authority. (¶¶ 71, 72)
- Umadevi does not impose an absolute embargo on all regularisation; following Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam Singh and Bhola Nath, the State cannot rely on the form of engagement or a rigid reading of Umadevi to deny fair treatment to workers who served continuously for decades in regular functions, and denial here was manifestly arbitrary. (¶¶ 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78)
- No adverse finding should be recorded against a class of persons without hearing them, especially where their monetary rights are affected; the High Court's observations denying regularisation and pension to Work Charged employees, made without impleading or hearing them, could not prejudice their independent claims. (¶¶ 93, 94, 95, 96)
- Since the 2017 Division Bench judgment relied on to deny pensionary benefits to ferry-service Muster Roll workers had been set aside, the order dismissing their claim could not stand. (¶ 104)
Result
C.A. Nos. 4514-4518 of 2025 allowed; Division Bench judgment of 08.06.2017 set aside and Single Judge's judgment affirmed; appellants engaged before 01.04.1993 to be treated as regularised from the date the 30,000 workers were, with supernumerary posts where needed and consequential and pensionary benefits (notional for retirees, to heirs of deceased) within one year. C.A. Nos. 4519, 4520 and 4523 of 2025 disposed of with liberty to pursue pension claims, Work Charged employees being a distinct class. No costs.