No Pension Without Sanctioned Post, No Regularization By The Backdoor: Gauhati High Court Rejects Long-Service Claim Of Work-Charged Retirees

“Merely Rendering Long Years Of Service Without Sanctioned Post Does Not Create A Right To Pension” —  In a significant pronouncement Gauhati High Court decisively rejected the claim of pensionary benefits by a group of twelve retired employees who had served the Assam Public Works Department (PWD) for over two decades as work-charged staff.

Justice Soumitra Saikia held that “long and continuous service alone does not override the requirement of appointment against a sanctioned post”, and that the conditions laid down under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 remain sacrosanct.

The judgment is a reaffirmation of the limits placed on pension eligibility for employees outside the cadre of regular government service and adds another chapter to the growing jurisprudence balancing welfare claims against statutory prerequisites.

“Regular Duties Do Not Bestow Regular Status”: Court Rejects Equivalence Between Work-Charged and Regular Employees

The petitioners had argued that they had not only rendered over 20 years of continuous service, but were also engaged in regular and perennial work, performing duties indistinguishable from regular Grade-III and Grade-IV employees. They emphasized that their service books were maintained, they drew regular scale of pay, and were even transferred like regular staff.

But the Court drew a sharp distinction between treatment as regular and legal status of regularization, stating:

“The projections sought to be made by the petitioners that the services rendered since their initial dates of engagement had the trappings of regular service cannot be accepted… They were aware that their initial engagement in service was temporary and not against any sanctioned posts.”

Justice Saikia underscored that a constitutional court cannot convert executive discretion into legal right, and that such transformation of service status “requires a positive act of regularization, not judicial presumption”.

“Office Memorandums Do Not Override Statutory Pension Rules”: Court Declines To Extend 1996 and 2003 OMs To Muster Roll Staff

A major plank of the petitioners’ argument rested on the Office Memorandums issued by the Assam Government on 12.09.1996 and 06.09.2003, which declared pension benefits for temporary employees who had rendered more than 20 years of service. The petitioners claimed to be covered by the term “temporary government employees” under these OMs.

Rejecting this reading, the Court clarified:

“The Office Memorandums are in respect of temporary government employees… There is no material to show that the petitioners were ever engaged against sanctioned posts, temporary or permanent… Their engagement as Muster Roll or Work-Charged employees excludes them from the scope of these Office Memorandums.”

The Court explained that under the PWD Code, work-charged or muster roll employment is “project-bound or need-based”, not a result of sanctioned cadre-based appointments.

“Prem Singh Does Not Create A Universal Right To Pension For All Work-Charged Employees”: Gauhati High Court Distinguishes SC Rulings

Petitioners had relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prem Singh v. State of U.P. (2019) 10 SCC 516 and its reaffirmation in Sudhansu Sekhar Jena (2025), where long-serving work-charged employees were held entitled to pension. They argued that the ratio was squarely applicable and their service tenure deserved to be counted.

However, Justice Saikia pointed out that Prem Singh was premised on different statutory frameworks and factual conditions, especially the presence of sanctioned posts and instances of regularization:

“The judgments referred to by the petitioners were in the context of other State laws and Rules… There is no challenge in the present case to Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969… Without sanctioned posts or prior regularization, the services rendered cannot be deemed regular.”

The Court emphasized that Prem Singh was not a universal license for pension but a contextual reading of U.P. Retirement Rules. Assam’s service framework, as per the Court, remained distinct.

“Doctrine Of Judicial Discipline Binds This Court To Division Bench Precedent In Upen Das”: High Court Refuses To Depart From Settled Law

In a crucial legal move, the Court placed its reliance on the authoritative Division Bench judgment in State of Assam v. Upen Das, (2017) 4 GLR 493, which had categorically held that work-charged and muster roll employees were not entitled to regularization or pension, though minimum wages and certain welfare schemes were extended.

Justice Saikia observed:

“Judicial discipline demands that the views of the Division Bench expressed in Upen Das (Supra) are required to be followed unless shown to be interfered with or read down by a superior forum.”

Noting that the petitioners had already availed benefits flowing from Upen Das, the Court held that “they cannot now turn around and seek benefits inconsistent with that judgment.”

“Pension May Be Denied, But Not Dignity”: Court Directs Assam Government To Frame Financial Benefit Scheme For Retired Workers

While dismissing the writ petition, the Court did not ignore the prolonged and sincere service of the petitioners. Taking a cue from recent Supreme Court rulings in Jaggo v. Union of India, Shripal, and Dharam Singh, Justice Saikia acknowledged the growing concern over long-serving employees being left without any retirement support.

The Court molded the relief:

“This Court… directs the Government to undertake appropriate exercises to formulate a scheme for grant of financial benefits to the writ petitioners and other similarly situated persons in lieu of pensionary benefits.”

The State Government has been directed to constitute a high-level committee, headed by an Additional Chief Secretary, with representatives from the Finance, PWD, Law, and Personnel departments. The committee must formulate a comprehensive scheme within three months, and submit it for implementation

“Pension Is Not A Bounty, But A Right Earned — Yet One That Cannot Override Statutory Preconditions”: High Court Reiterates Limits Of Judicial Mandate

In an important clarification of constitutional principles, the Court acknowledged the socio-economic philosophy behind pension as laid down in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305:

“Pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace… It is a measure of socio-economic justice meant to prevent destitution in old age.”

Yet, the Court was unequivocal that no amount of sympathy or equity can rewrite statutory preconditions, and that unless the employment is against a sanctioned post and regularized, the doors of Rule 31 remain closed.

By walking the tightrope between statutory fidelity and human concern, the Gauhati High Court has sent a clear message: “law cannot be bent for compassion, but compassion can still find space within the framework of policy”. While the doors to pension were firmly shut, the call for a humane and structured financial remedy has been raised — a call now directed to the conscience of the Assam Government.

Date of Decision: 30 January 2026