Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State of Assam and Others

p. 585

78. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to accept the contention of the State that the appellants cannot be granted regularization on the ground that they were not initially appointed against duly sanctioned posts. The State, having engaged the appellants prior to 1st April, 1993, utilised their services continuously for decades, and having itself framed and implemented a Cabinet policy regularizing nearly 30,000 similarly situated workers, cannot now exclude the appellants by taking shelter behind a rigid or technical reading of Umadevi (supra). In absence of any cogent distinction or reasoned decision justifying such exclusion, the action of the State is manifestly arbitrary. It is inconsistent with its obligation to function as a model employer and does not withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

79. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned judgment dated 8th June, 2017 passed by the Division Bench cannot be sustained and is set aside and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20th December, 2013 is affirmed. Consequently, we pass the following directions:- I. The appellants shall be treated as regularised in service in terms of the Cabinet decision dated 22nd July, 2005 and from the date on which similarly placed 30,000 employees were given benefit of the said Cabinet decision. II. The State of Assam shall identify and verify the eligible appellants and, where necessary, create supernumerary posts to facilitate their regularization. III. Upon regularization, the appellants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay in the regular scale, continuity of service, and all applicable pensionary and post-retiral benefits in the same terms, as were extended to similarly situated 30,000 employees. IV. In case of retired appellants, they shall be granted notional regularization with consequential monetary benefits and arrears from the relevant date until their superannuation for the purpose of recalculating pension, gratuity, and terminal dues. V. In case of deceased appellants, arrears and other benefits shall be released to their legal heirs in accordance with law.

p. 586

VI. The entire exercise, including the calculation and payment of all financial arrears, shall be completed within a period of one year from the date of this judgment. VII. We make it clear that the benefit of the above directions shall only be applicable to the appellants who were working in the departments of the State before the cut-off date prescribed in Cabinet decision dated 22nd July, 2005 i.e. before 1st April, 1993.

80. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

81. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Civil Appeal No. 4519 of 2025; Civil Appeal No. 4520 of 2025

82. The instant appeals have been preferred by All Assam Work Charge Employee Association15, a registered State-wide association representing the interests of Work Charged employees serving under various departments of the Government of Assam, assailing the judgment and order dated 8th June, 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 45 of 2014 whereby the Division Bench set aside the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, and reversed the direction of regularization, pensionary and other benefits passed in favour of Work Charged and Muster Roll employees.

83. The appellant-association is aggrieved by the impugned judgment to the limited extent that the Division Bench, while adjudicating upon the claims of Muster Roll and Casual workers, proceeded to treat Work Charged employees as forming part of the same class as Muster Roll workers and thereby foreclosed their entitlement to pension and other consequential benefits, without independently examining their distinct factual and legal position, and without the appellant- association or its members having been impleaded as parties or afforded an opportunity of being heard before the High Court. In particular, the appellants are aggrieved by the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment, which read as follows:- “For these reasons, we are of the view that in the fact situation of the case, Muster Roll workers, Work

15 Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-association”.

p. 587

Charged workers and Casual workers are not entitled for regularization of their services with consequential benefits, such as, pension etc.”

84. Aggrieved by the adverse findings recorded in the impugned judgment, the appellant-association preferred Review Petition No. 150 of 2019 before the High Court seeking reconsideration of the observations contained in the impugned judgment, particularly to the extent the same affected the rights of Work Charged employees who were not party to the proceedings. However, in view of the pendency of special leave petitions before this Court assailing the same impugned judgment, the High Court, vide order dated 27th July, 2023, permitted the appellant-association to withdraw the review petition. Thereafter, the appellant-association approached this Court by filing the present special leave petition along with an application for permission to file which was granted by this Court vide order dated 1st December, 2023.

Submissions

85. Shri Manish Goswami and Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-association submitted that the appellant- association and its members were never impleaded as parties in the writ proceedings before the High Court which culminated in the impugned judgment, and consequently had no opportunity to present their case, particularly in relation to their entitlement to pension and other post-retiral benefits. It was submitted that the observations made in paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment, insofar as they relate to Work Charged employees, were rendered without hearing the affected class and without examining their distinct factual and legal position.

86. Learned senior counsel submitted that the claim of the Work Charged employees for pension and other post retiral benefits is based upon Office Memoranda issued by the Government of Assam, including O.M. No. FMP.48/83/40 dated 10th August, 1983; O.M. No PPG(P)196/92/35 dated 12th September, 1996; and O.M. No PPG(P) 196/92/61 dated and 6th September, 2003, which continue to remain in force and provide for grant of pensionary benefits to temporary Government employees who have rendered the prescribed period of continuous service. It was urged that these Office Memoranda were neither placed before nor considered by the High Court while rendering

p. 588

the impugned judgment. It was further urged that Work Charged employees are governed by applicable service rules and protections, including the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules, and are extended service benefits such as grade pay, allowances, maintenance of service records, and deductions towards GPF and GIS.

87. Learned senior counsel contended that Work Charged employees constitute a distinct class of Government employees, and the High Court erred in treating them at par with Muster Roll and Casual workers without examining their separate legal status. It was submitted that the appellant-association seeks only a limited clarification that the observations contained in paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment shall not foreclose the independent remedies and entitlements of Work Charged employees under applicable rules and executive instructions.

88. Accordingly, learned senior counsel prayed that the impugned judgment be modified to the aforesaid limited extent, so as to permit Work Charged employees to pursue their claims for pension and other consequential benefits in accordance with law.

89. Per contra, Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Assam submitted that the present appeals are not maintainable at the instance of the appellant-association as it had failed to disclose the identity, service particulars, or other relevant details of its alleged members, and in the absence of such foundational material, the claims made in the present proceedings remain unverified and unsubstantiated. Shri Gupta further submitted that the appellant-association was never a party to the writ proceedings before the High Court and had not independently instituted any writ petition raising its grievances. The issues and factual assertions now sought to be urged have not been adjudicated by any Court and without the benefit of pleadings or findings of the writ Court, the present appeals cannot be adjudicated for the first time in proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution.

90. Learned senior counsel contended that no blanket directions or observations should be issued at the instance of the appellant- association, as the same would cause serious administrative and financial prejudice to the State. Accordingly, learned senior counsel prayed that the present appeals be dismissed and the impugned judgment be affirmed.

p. 589

Discussion

91. Having heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the grievance of the appellant–association is confined to a limited facet of the impugned judgment dated 8th June 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, insofar as it treats Work Charged employees at par with Muster Roll and Casual workers, without an independent examination of their distinct legal and factual status.

92. We may note that we have already set aside the impugned judgment in entirety while adjudicating the appeals of the Muster Roll and Casual workers in Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025.

93. It is not in dispute that neither the appellant–association nor its members were impleaded as parties in the writ proceedings culminating in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the Work Charged employees neither individually nor in representative capacity had an opportunity of being heard, particularly on the issue of their entitlement to pensionary and other consequential benefits. The observations made in paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment, to the extent they pertain to Work Charged employees were, thus, recorded without affording an opportunity to the affected class and without consideration of the relevant Office Memoranda and applicable service framework governing such employees.

94. Further, it is pertinent to note that there was no independent adjudication before the High Court concerning the distinct claims and service conditions of Work Charged employees and despite the absence of any specific pleadings or consideration on the issue, adverse observations came to be recorded against them.

95. In this backdrop and having regard to the settled principle that no adverse finding ought to be recorded against a class of persons without hearing them, more particularly when the lis affects the monetary rights of the group of employees, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment, to the limited extent indicated above, cannot be sustained. We may reiterate that the impugned judgment dated 8th June 2017 passed by the Division Bench has already been set aside in Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025 and hence the observations contained therein shall not operate to prejudice or foreclose the independent claims of Work Charged employees, if any.

p. 590

Conclusion

96. Accordingly, it is clarified that Work Charged employees shall be treated as a distinct class, and their entitlement to pension and other post-retiral benefits shall not be adversely affected by the observations made in the impugned judgment.

97. The members of the appellant–association, if they so desire, shall be at liberty to agitate their claims for pensionary and other consequential benefits before the State Government. However, this order shall not be treated as conferring any specific right or entitlement on any such employee.

98. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

99. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Civil Appeal No. 4523 of 2025

100. The instant appeal has been preferred assailing order dated 19th June, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 197 of 2024 whereby the Division Bench, dismissed the writ appeal and affirmed the order dated 10th May, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge holding the appellants ineligible for pensionary benefits.

101. The appellants herein are Muster Roll workers serving in different ferry services under the office of the Executive Engineer, IWT, Silchar, having been appointed between the years 1993 and 1995. They have been paid grade pay, dearness allowance, medical allowance and other service benefits in a manner similar to regular employees, but pensionary benefits have not been extended to them. In a meeting dated 22nd September, 2023 between the State authorities and the Sadou Assam Karmachari Parishad, it was resolved that a proposal for extending pensionary benefits to Muster Roll employees would be submitted by the Administrative Department to the Finance Department. However, no proposal including the names of the appellants were forwarded. The appellants submitted representations dated 8th January, 2024 and 22nd February, 2024, however, the same remained unanswered.

102. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 1946 of 2024 seeking a direction to the administrative department to place the proposal before the Finance Department in terms of the decision

p. 591

taken on 22nd September, 2023. During the pendency of the writ petition, another meeting was held on 15th March, 2024, wherein it was decided that the State would favourably examine the case of casual, Muster Roll and minimum pay scale employees for coverage under the New Pension Scheme, subject to their willingness to contribute the prescribed premium. Notwithstanding these developments, the High Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 10th May, 2024 on the ground that the issue stood concluded by an earlier Division Bench decision in State of Assam v. Upen Das16 (impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025 and Civil Appeal No. 4519 of 2020), and consequently held that the appellants were not entitled to pensionary benefits.

103. The appellants preferred a writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 19th June, 2024, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

104. Since the judgment dated 8th June, 2017 passed in Upen Das (supra), which was relied by the Division Bench has been set aside in Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025, the impugned judgment dated 19th June, 2024 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.

105. The appellants shall be at liberty to agitate their claims for pensionary benefits before the appropriate authority/forum in accordance with law and the applicable policy framework.

106. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

107. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: C ivil Appeal No(s). 4514, 4516, 4515, 4517 and 4518 of 2025, allowed; Civil Appeal No(s). 4519, 4520 and 4523 of 2025, disposed of.

16 2017 SCC OnLine Gau 360