The Supreme Court has ruled that temporary status casual labourers who served for long periods can receive pensionary benefits even without formal regularisation.
Allowing appeals filed by former Department of Posts employees and the families of deceased workers, the Court set aside the Patna High Court’s decisions. The High Court had denied pension solely because the employees never received formal regularisation as Group ‘D’ staff.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih held:
“A temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence of regularisation.”
The Bench further observed:
“…long-serving employees, whether casual or temporary, particularly those who have been conferred a recognised status and extended benefits akin to regular employees, cannot be denied corresponding benefits including social security and pensionary benefits.”
Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Pandey appeared for the appellants. Additional Solicitor General Bijender Chahar represented the respondents.
Background of the Dispute
The appeals arose from claims made by former Night Guards and their legal heirs in the Department of Posts.
The employees joined service between 1971 and 1981. They continued working until retirement.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (1990), the Department of Posts introduced the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991.
The scheme aimed to improve service conditions and provide social security benefits to casual labourers.
Authorities granted temporary status to the employees with retrospective effect from November 29, 1989.
Later, a departmental circular dated November 30, 1992, provided additional benefits. Casual labourers who completed three years of continuous service after obtaining temporary status became eligible for benefits available to temporary Group ‘D’ employees.
Although the employees received these benefits and continued in service for several years, the department never issued formal regularisation orders.
When they retired, authorities rejected their pension claims. The department argued that regularisation remained a mandatory condition for pension.
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) accepted the employees’ claims. However, the Patna High Court later reversed those decisions.
Supreme Court Examines the Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined the 1991 Scheme, the 1992 circular, the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
The Bench noted that the scheme served as a welfare measure. It sought to integrate casual labourers into the mainstream service structure.
The scheme extended several benefits similar to those enjoyed by Group ‘D’ employees.
These benefits included pay parity, leave, provident fund coverage, medical facilities, Leave Travel Concession (LTC), bonus, and pension-related advantages.
The Court observed:
“The Scheme contemplates extension of benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees after completion of the prescribed period of service under temporary status.”
Benefits Listed in the Circular Are Not Exhaustive
A major issue before the Court involved interpreting the departmental circular dated November 30, 1992.
The Bench focused on the phrase “such as” used while listing benefits available to temporary Group ‘D’ employees.
According to the Court, this phrase shows that the list is illustrative rather than exhaustive.
The Bench observed:
“The utilisation of the words ‘such as’ clearly indicates that the benefits enumerated therein are illustrative and neither restrictive nor exhaustive.”
Therefore, authorities could not deny pension merely because the circular did not specifically mention it.
Pension Does Not Depend on Regularisation
The Union of India argued that employees could claim pension only after formal regularisation.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument.
According to the Bench, pensionary rights flowed directly from the 1991 Scheme and the 1992 circular.
The Court clarified that Clause 6 of the Scheme only provided an additional benefit where regularisation occurred. It did not create the pension entitlement itself.
The Bench observed:
“The pensionary entitlement of temporary status employees who have completed the prescribed period of service flows independently from the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992.”
Court Clarifies the Status of Temporary Casual Labourers
The Court distinguished between casual labourers, temporary status casual labourers, temporary government servants, and regular government servants.
Although temporary status casual labourers were not formally regular employees, the government extended to them benefits similar to those available to temporary government servants.
The Court observed:
“The distinction that remains is one relating to nomenclature, formal status and mode of regularisation but not to the nature of extended benefits.”
The Bench also highlighted Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
This rule expressly recognises entitlement to superannuation pension, gratuity, and family pension after completion of the required qualifying service.
Pension Is a Right, Not a Charity
The Supreme Court stressed the welfare nature of pension.
The Bench reiterated that pension is not a discretionary payment.
Instead, it represents deferred wages earned through years of service.
The Court observed:
“Pension is not a matter of grace dependent upon the financial convenience of the employer, but a deferred wage earned through long years of service.”
The Bench further stated:
“The emphasis must be on ensuring that the State does not retain such employees in a precarious condition while extracting services identical to those performed by regular employees.”
The Court also reaffirmed that pension is a property right protected under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Grants Pensionary Benefits
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court held that temporary status casual labourers who completed three years of continuous service and received benefits available to temporary Group ‘D’ employees are entitled to pensionary benefits.
The Court ruled that this entitlement exists even when formal regularisation never occurred.
Accordingly, the Bench set aside the Patna High Court’s judgments.
It directed the authorities to calculate and release pensionary and consequential retiral benefits within three months.
The Court further ordered that any delay beyond this period would attract interest at 6% per annum from the date of accrual until payment.
Case Details
Case Title: Bhikhani Devi & Etc. v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 612
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
For the Appellants: Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Pandey
For the Respondents: ASG Bijender Chahar and others
