Mr. Goswami, the appellants were never appointed against sanctioned posts. Under Umadevi, regularization is impermissible for employees not working against sanctioned posts. How do you overcome this?

My Lord, the appellants are not seeking regularization under the Umadevi exception. Their claim is rooted in the Cabinet decision dated 22 July 2005, by which the State consciously decided to regularize Work Charged and Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 1 April 1993. Pursuant to this decision, nearly 30,000 similarly situated workers were regularized. The appellants claim parity with that class and seek equal treatment under Article 14. The issue is not one of invoking the limited exception carved out in Umadevi, but of ensuring that employees who stand on the same footing are treated alike. The State cannot take shelter under Umadevi when it has already regularized identically placed workers. Once the State chose to regularize a large body of workers, it was under a constitutional obligation to treat all eligible members of that class alike.

The State argues that the exception carved out in paragraph 53 of Umadevi applies only to irregular appointments in sanctioned posts. Since the appellants were not in sanctioned posts, they cannot claim benefit. What is your response?

My Lord, paragraph 53 of Umadevi is not the source of the appellants' claim. The source is the State's own Cabinet decision. The State itself framed a policy in 2005 to regularize Work Charged and Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 1 April 1993. It acted upon that policy and regularized nearly 30,000 workers. The appellants belong to that very category. There is no distinguishing feature shown which separates them from the beneficiaries of the 2005 decision. In Jaggo v. Union of India, this Court held that Umadevi does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State. The distinction between 'illegal' and 'irregular' appointments must be kept in view, and long and continuous service is a relevant consideration.

The State gave undertakings before the High Court, but those undertakings were given in 2010-2011. Umadevi was decided in 2006. The State was aware of Umadevi when it gave those undertakings. Why should the State be bound by undertakings that were contrary to law?

My Lord, if the State genuinely apprehended any legal impediment arising from Umadevi, it ought to have raised such concerns at the first instance. Instead, it continued to assure the Court that a policy for regularization of left-out workers was under active consideration. An undertaking given to a constitutional court is a binding commitment. The State cannot subsequently take a contrary stand by citing inapplicable legal dispositions which were pre-existing at the time when the undertaking was furnished. The State cannot approbate and reprobate. It cannot, on the one hand, secure time and indulgence from the Court on the assurance that a policy will be implemented and, on the other, avoid implementation by citing precedents that were already in existence at the time the undertakings were furnished.

The State argues that granting regularization to the appellants would open floodgates for similar claims by hundreds of others, causing a serious financial burden. How do you respond?

My Lord, the floodgates argument cannot be a ground to deny constitutional rights. If there are other identically situated workers, they are equally entitled to be treated fairly under Article 14. The State cannot pick and choose. Moreover, the State itself regularized nearly 30,000 workers. Adding a few hundred more — those who were left out due to clerical errors — will not break the exchequer. The State has already created posts for 30,000 workers. It can create posts for the left-out few as well. The financial burden argument is not a valid defence when the State has itself implemented the policy for a large number. The State must bear the consequences of its own lapses.

For PetitionerService Premium

Identically Placed Workers Regularized, Exclusion Arbitrary — (2026) INSC 523

The appellants are identically situated to nearly 30,000 Muster Roll and Work Charged workers who were regularized pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated 22 July 2005.

Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam — (2026) INSC 523

Core Argument

The appellants are identically situated to nearly 30,000 Muster Roll and Work Charged workers who were regularized pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated 22 July 2005. The exclusion of the appellants due to clerical errors and administrative lapses violates Article 14. The State cannot take shelter under Umadevi when it has already regularized similarly placed workers.

Key Precedents

Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association v. National Textile Corporation Ltd. (2022) 17 SCC 797 — Held that equals must be treated equally; if persons similarly placed are treated differently without rational basis, it violates Article 14.
Pawan Kumar v. Union of India 2026 INSC 156 — Held that when certain employees have been regularized but others similarly placed were left out, such differential treatment is discriminatory, and the same relief must be granted.
Jaggo v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 — Held that Umadevi does not intend to penalize long-serving employees; the State cannot take mechanical shelter under Umadevi to deny equitable treatment.
National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan (1998) 7 SCC 66 — Explained the doctrine of legitimate expectation — government must honour its statements of policy and intention.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in