Supreme Court of India
BHIKHANI DEVI AND ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 612
- Decided
- 1 June 2026
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
A temporary status casual labourer is entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even without formal regularisation, as the Scheme and the 30‑Nov‑1992 circular extend all benefits of temporary Group ‘D’ employees, including pension, to such workers.
Summary
The appellants, former night‑guard casual labourers of the Department of Posts, were granted "temporary status" under the 1991 Casual Labourers Scheme and later treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees after three years of service, but were never formally regularised. They sought pension and family‑pension benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which were denied by the Union of India on the ground that regularisation was a prerequisite. The Supreme Court examined the Scheme, the 30‑Nov‑1992 circular, and the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, holding that the extension of benefits to temporary Group ‘D’ employees includes pensionary benefits irrespective of formal regularisation. It further affirmed that pension is a constitutional right under Art. 300A and cannot be barred by delay, though arrears are limited to three years and two months. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s orders and directed the respondents to pay the entitled pensionary and related benefits to the appellants.
Issues considered
- Whether a temporary status casual labourer is entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation in the absence of a formal order of regularisation.
- Whether the provisions of the 1991 Scheme and the 30‑Nov‑1992 circular extend pensionary benefits to temporary status casual labourers.
- Whether the denial of pension on the ground of delay or laches is permissible.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation or not. Headnotes† CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 – r.10(1-B) – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 labourer, if entitled to pensionary benefits in absence of regularization – Appellants are either former employees or legal representatives of employees who had rendered long, continuous, and uninterrupted service under the Department of Posts as casual labourers (Night Guards) spanning
Subjects
Casual labourersTemporary Government servantTemporary Government employeesTemporary status casual labourerTemporary statusAbsence of a formal order of regularizationAbsence of regularizationPensionary benefitsTemporary status casual labourer entitled to pensionary benefitsCasual and temporary employeesRights of casual labourersRights of temporary employeesCasual labourers (Night Guards)Department of PostsCasual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991Temporary Group ‘D’ employeesCasual temporary status employeeState a model employerArticle 300A of the Constitution of IndiaPension a constitutional right in the nature of propertyPension not a bountyPension a vested and enforceable constitutional rightClaim for pension cannot be defeated on the ground of delayLong-serving employeesLong, continuous, and uninterrupted serviceLong, continuous service as casual labourers (Night Guards)Service spanning several decadesParity in service benefitsIdentity of service statusClaim for pension a continuing cause of actionNomenclature of ‘temporary status casual labourer’Regular Government employees
Judgment
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 142 : 2026 INSC 612
Bhikhani Devi and Etc.
v.
Union of India and Others
(Civil Appeal No(s). 8354-8356 of 2026)
01 June 2026
[Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a
formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to pensionary
benefits on superannuation or not.
Headnotes†
CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 – r.10(1-B) – CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 – A temporary status casual labourer, if
entitled to pensionary benefits in absence of regularization –
Appellants are either former employees or legal representatives
of employees who had rendered long, continuous, and
uninterrupted service under the Department of Posts as
casual labourers (Night Guards) spanning several decades
till superannuation – They were conferred “temporary status”
under the “Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regularisation) Scheme, 1991” (Scheme) – Subsequently,
Circular dtd.30.11.1992 provided that, the casual labourers
who were conferred with temporary status under the Scheme
and had rendered three years of continuous service with such
temporary status be treated at par with ‘temporary Group ‘D’
employees’ and were held entitled to the benefits admissible
to such employees – Notwithstanding the conferment of
temporary status and the extension of benefits akin to Group
‘D’ employees, the Appellants or their predecessors-in-interest
were never formally regularised in service – Appellants sought
grant of pensionary benefits/family pension requesting that
the service rendered under temporary status be counted for
the purpose of pensionary benefits – Claim rejected on the
ground that the employees were not ‘formally regularised’ as
Group ‘D’ employees – Appellants sought pensionary benefits/
family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension)
* Author
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 143
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
Rules, 1972 – Allowed by Tribunal – Order set aside by High
Court – Interference with:
Held: A temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to
pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence
of regularization – The submission advanced on behalf of the
Respondents is that under the Scheme the employees continue
merely as temporary status casual labourers and are distinct
from the temporary Government servants, and so would be the
pensionary framework applicable – At first blush, this contention
appears to be correct to an extent however, on due consideration
and deliberation of the Scheme and its various clauses as a
whole, the submission is misplaced – Although, it may be correct
to say that conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer
under the Scheme does not ipso facto transform such employee
into a temporary Government servant, however, what falls short
from the aforesaid submission is that while the status of such
employee continues unchanged i.e., of a ‘temporary status casual
labourers’, the Scheme consciously and specifically extends
to such employees benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’
employees upon completion of three years of continuous service
under temporary status – The service conditions, at this juncture,
of the casual temporary status employee under the Scheme
gets substantially changed and carries all the benefits that are
available to temporary government employees – Therefore, while
the nomenclature and category of their service status remain
unchanged, the nature and extent of benefits now available to them
stand significantly enlarged and aligned with those admissible to
temporary Government employees, blurring the distinction between
both categories as far as benefits available to them are concerned –
The distinction that remains is one relating to nomenclature,
formal status and mode of regularisation but not to the nature of
extended benefits – When the statutory framework including CCS
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is read in conjunction with the
Scheme and the circular dtd.30.11.1992, the inescapable conclusion
which emerges is that a casual labour, on being conferred the
temporary status, upon completion of three years of continuous
service as temporary status casual labourer becomes entitled
to benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, which
necessarily includes pensionary benefits available u/r.10(1-B) of
the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 subject to fulfilling the
eligibility criteria provided therein – This right is not dependent on
144 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
regularization – Impugned judgments proceeded on an erroneous
interpretation of the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992,
set aside – Appellants entitled to pensionary and consequential
retiral benefits in accordance with law – Constitution of India –
Arts.14, 300A. [Paras 66, 67, 75, 76, 84]
Constitution of India – Art.300A – Pension is not a bounty but
a vested and enforceable constitutional right:
Held: Pension is a hard-earned benefit amassed by an employee
by virtue of long and continuous service and is in the nature of
“property” within the meaning of Art.300A of the Constitution of
India – Once pension is recognised as a constitutional right in the
nature of property, it cannot be taken away except by authority of
law – A statutory right cannot be rendered illusory on account of
inaction of the employer, and such inaction cannot defeat or deny
a constitutional right. [Paras 41, 42]
Service Law – In furtherance of the “Casual Labourers (Grant
of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991”
(Scheme), circular dtd.30.11.1992 provided that the casual
labourers conferred with temporary status as per the Scheme
be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees with
effect from the date of completion of three years of service
in the temporary status – The benefits listed in the circular
dtd. 30.11.1992 included leave, holidays, GPF, medical
facilities, LTC, bonus, and other service benefits admissible
to Temporary Group ‘D’ employees – Plea of the Respondents
that temporary status casual labourers are extended only
the benefits that are specified in the Scheme and Circular
dtd.30.11.1992 and are not entitled for pensionary benefits:
Held: Said submission is misconceived – The enumeration of
benefits listed in the circular dtd.30.11.1992, includes leave,
holidays, GPF, medical facilities, LTC, bonus, and other service
benefits admissible to Temporary Group ‘D’ employees, clearly
demonstrates that temporary status employees are to be functionally
assimilated into the service framework of Temporary Group ‘D’
employees – The expression “benefits admissible to temporary
Group ‘D’ employees such as”, made use of in the circular is
of considerable importance – The utilisation of the words “such
as” clearly indicates that the benefits enumerated therein are
illustrative and neither restrictive nor exhaustive – The circular,
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 145
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
being a beneficial legislation, cannot be read and understood in
a restrictive manner rather the correct approach of interpretation
would be to analyse it in the letter and spirit of the legislative and
administrative intent i.e. to extend all benefits as are available
to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, to temporary status casual
labourers including pensionary benefits. [Paras 54, 55]
CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 – r.10(1-B) – CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 – Plea of the Respondents that the
Appellants were paid out of contingencies and therefore stood
excluded from the purview of the CCS (Temporary Service)
Rules, 1965:
Held: Said contention cannot be accepted in the particular facts of
the present case – Such exclusion may have relevance at the stage
of initial engagement as casual labourers – However, the service
conditions of the Appellants underwent a substantial transformation
upon extension of benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’
employees – The continued reliance by the Respondents upon the
original mode of engagement, while simultaneously extending pay
parity, increments, GPF facilities, leave benefits and other service
entitlements akin to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, would amount to
selectively accepting one part of the Scheme while disregarding the
other – Such an approach would defeat the very object underlying
the Scheme and the circular dtd.30.11.1992 – Once parity in service
benefits with temporary Group ‘D’ employees is consciously extended
under the Scheme, pensionary benefits flowing u/r.10(1-B) of the
Rules of 1965 cannot be selectively denied by ignoring or overlooking
the statutory right – The argument founded upon financial burden
is equally untenable – 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 – Pension is recognised as a
constitutional right in the nature of property protected u/Art.300A of
the Constitution of India and, therefore, it cannot be denied on the
plea of financial burden. [Para 73]
Service Law – Constitution of India – Arts.14; 38, 39, 43 –
State, a model employer – Long-serving employees,
casual or temporary, if conferred a recognised status and
extended benefits akin to regular employees, cannot be
denied corresponding benefits including social security and
pensionary benefits:
146 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: 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 – 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 – This
approach is firmly rooted in the constitutional mandate of equality
enshrined u/Art.14 – Any classification, resulting in denial of any
benefits to a class of employees who are otherwise similarly situated
in terms of duties and responsibilities would fall foul of constitutional
ethos – Further, the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly
Arts.38, 39 and 43, cast a positive obligation upon the State to
ensure social and economic justice, fair conditions of work, and a
decent standard of life for labourers – Pension, in this context, is
not a gratuitous benefit but a facet of social welfare and economic
justice – State as a model employer, read in conjunction with the
aforesaid constitutional mandate, reinforces the obligation upon
the State to extend fair and equitable treatment to employees who
have rendered long and continuous service and the State cannot
extract services of a permanent nature while denying corresponding
benefits. [Paras 38-40]
Service Law – Pensionary benefits – Delay and laches:
Held: Pensionary benefits constitute a continuing cause of action,
and a claim for pension cannot be defeated solely on the ground
of delay – At the same time, the claim for arrears is required to
be balanced with settled principles governing limitation – In the
present case, nothing has been brought on record to indicate that
the Appellants had raised any claim for pensionary benefits prior to
filing of the respective Original Applications before the Tribunal –
In such circumstances, while the entitlement of the Appellants to
pensionary and consequential retiral benefits stands established,
the arrears thereof, wherever applicable, shall remain confined to
the period of three years and two months preceding the date of
filing of the respective Original Applications before the Tribunal,
consistent with settled principles governing service jurisprudence.
[Para 81]
Service Law – Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status
and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991” – Different categories
of employees engaged within the service framework in the
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 147
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
Department of Posts viz., Casual labourers; Temporary
status casual labourers; Temporary Government employees;
and Regular Government employees – Distinction between,
stated – CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. [Paras 59-65]
Service Law – Parity in service benefits vis-à-vis identity of
service status:
Held: The Scheme in question nowhere provides that upon
completion of three years’ service under temporary status, the
employee becomes a temporary Government servant – What it
specifically provides is that such employee shall be treated at par
with temporary Group ‘D’ employees for purposes of extension of
admissible benefits – The parity contemplated under the Scheme
is thus parity in service benefits and not identity of service status –
Once the Scheme and the circular dtd.30.11.1992 consciously
extend benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees,
the Respondents cannot rely solely upon the nomenclature of
‘temporary status casual labourer’ to deny those very benefits –
The entire framework of the Scheme proceeds upon extension of
substantive service benefits despite continuance of the original
nomenclature as temporary status casual labourer. [Para 68]
Service Law – Plea of the Respondents that Clause 6 of
the “Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regularisation) Scheme, 1991” (Scheme) contemplates
counting of 50% service rendered under temporary status
towards retirement benefits only after formal regularisation
as Group ‘D’ employee and, therefore, in the absence of
regularisation, no pensionary benefits can be granted:
Held: Said submission cannot be accepted – Clause 6 cannot
be read in isolation divorced from the principles and purpose
underlying the Scheme and the circular dtd.30.11.1992 – The
judgment of this Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union, which forms
the basis of the Scheme itself, categorically directed that upon
completion of three years of continuous service under temporary
status, casual labourers ‘would thereby be entitled to benefits as
are admissible to Group ‘D’ employees on regular basis’ – The
circular dtd.30.11.1992 further clarifies that such employees
would be entitled to counting of service for pension and terminal
benefits as admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees – The
expression “after regularisation” occurring in Clause 6 cannot be
148 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
construed in a narrow or restrictive manner so as to defeat the
beneficial object underlying the Scheme and must be construed in
its proper context – Clause 6 has to be interpreted harmoniously
and would construe to mean that in cases where formal orders
of regularisation are passed, 50% of the service rendered under
temporary status would be liable to be counted towards retirement
and pensionary benefits as additional benefit apart from the
benefits as available under the rules which become applicable to
a regular government employee – Consequently, while Clause 6
may operate to confer an additional advantage in cases where
regularisation takes place, the absence of formal regularisation
cannot be construed as extinguishing or defeating the underlying
entitlement to pensionary benefits. [Paras 56, 57]
Case Law Cited
Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) and Others v. Mahanagar Telephone
Nigam Ltd. and Another (1990) Supp. SCC 113; Vinod Kumar and
Others v. Union of India and Others [2024] 1 SCR 1230 : (2024)
9 SCC 327; Jaggo v. Union of India and Others [2024] 12 SCR
1235 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Yashwant Hari Katakkar v.
Union of India and Others (1996) 7 SCC 113; State of Jharkhand
and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another [2013] 8
SCR 177 : (2013) 12 SCC 210 – relied on.
M.L. Patil (Dead) through Lrs. v. State of Goa and Another [2022]
3 SCR 362 : (2023) 1 SCC 660; Indian Council of Agricultural
Research and Another v. Santosh (2006) 11 SCC 157 – referred to.
List of Acts
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Central Civil Services
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
List of Keywords
Casual labourers; Temporary Government servant; Temporary
Government employees; Temporary status casual labourer;
“Temporary status”; Absence of a formal order of regularization;
Absence of regularization; Pensionary benefits; Temporary
status casual labourer entitled to pensionary benefits; Casual
and temporary employees; Rights of casual labourers; Rights of
temporary employees; Casual labourers (Night Guards); Department
of Posts; Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 149
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
Regularisation) Scheme, 1991; Temporary Group ‘D’ employees;
Casual temporary status employee; State a model employer; Article
300A of the Constitution of India; Pension a constitutional right in
the nature of property; Pension not a bounty; Pension a vested
and enforceable constitutional right; Claim for pension cannot be
defeated on the ground of delay; Long-serving employees; Long
years of service; Long, continuous, and uninterrupted service; Long,
continuous service as casual labourers (Night Guards); Service
spanning several decades; Parity in service benefits; Identity of
service status; Claim for pension a continuing cause of action;
Nomenclature of ‘temporary status casual labourer’; Regular
Government employees.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
8354-8356 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in CWJC Nos. 15420, 11564, 13980 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Amrish Kumar, Sudarshan Lamba.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Bijender Chahar, A.S.G., Sudarshan Lamba, Kumar Murlidhar,
Atul Verma, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Sunil Kumar Verma, Shariq
Ahmed, Tariq Ahmed, M/s Ahmadi Law Offices, Mohan Prasad
Gupta, Rohit Khare, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Ms. Seema Bengani, Rajesh
Kr. Singh, Jagdish Chandra, Mohan Prasad Gupta, Sushil Raaja,
Amrish Kumar.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Augustine George Masih, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. These Civil Appeals challenge the judgments and final orders dated
14.10.2019 (“Impugned Judgments) passed by the High Court of
150 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judicature at Patna (“High Court”) in Civil W.P. Case No.15420 of
2019, Civil W.P. Case No.11564 of 2019 and Civil W.P. Case No.13980
of 2019, whereby the writ petitions preferred by the Respondent–Union
of India were allowed, resulting in the setting aside of the Orders of
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna (“Tribunal”) dated 27.03.2018,
30.07.2018 and 03.08.2018 passed in Original Applications, filed by
the Appellants herein, granting relief to them.
3. The Appellants before this Court are either former employees or legal
representatives of employees who had rendered long years of service
under the Department of Posts as casual labourers (Night Guards).
4. Appellant, Bhikhani Devi, is the widow of Late Suraj Sah, who was
initially appointed as a paid casual labourer (Night Guard) at the
Rajnagar Post Office in Madhubani District, Bihar, on 12.02.1972.
Appellant, Bahuru Sahu, was appointed on 10.10.1971 and Appellant,
Pitamber Jha, was similarly appointed as a casual labourer (Night
Guard) on 20.06.1981.
5. It is not in dispute that all three employees rendered long, continuous,
and uninterrupted service spanning several decades in the said
capacity and continued to discharge duties as a casual labourer till
superannuation.
6. On 12.04.1991, pursuant to directions of this Court in Jagrit Mazdoor
Union (Regd.) and Others v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
and Another1, the Department of Posts formulated the “Casual
Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme,
1991” (“Scheme”), with the avowed objective of providing improved
service conditions and a measure of social security to casual
labourers. The said scheme was communicated to all concerned
Departments on 15.05.1991.
7. In furtherance of the said Scheme, Late Suraj Sah, along with Bahuru
Sahu and Pitamber Jha, were conferred “temporary status” vide
departmental memo dated 20.11.1992, with effect from 29.11.1989.
The conferment of such status marked a significant shift in the service
conditions, entitling them to certain benefits and bringing them within
the structured service framework of the Department.
1 (1990) Supp. SCC 113
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 151
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
8. Subsequently, by a circular/letter dated 30.11.1992, the Department of
Posts conveyed decision being taken that the casual labourers who
had been conferred with temporary status under the Scheme and
have rendered three years of continuous service with such temporary
status would be treated at par with ‘temporary Group ‘D’ employees’
and would be entitled to the benefits admissible to such employees,
including leave, holidays and other service-related entitlements.
9. In terms of the said circular, upon completion of the requisite period
of service, a further memo dated 03.05.2000 was issued directing
that Late Suraj Sah, along with Appellant - Bahuru Sahu, be treated
at par with “temporary Group ‘D’ employees”, thereby entitling them
to the benefits admissible to that category, including consideration
of service for the purpose of pension and other terminal benefits
upon regularisation.
10. Notwithstanding the conferment of temporary status and the
extension of benefits akin to Group ‘D’ employees, the Appellants
or their predecessors-in-interest were never formally regularised in
service. It is the case of the Appellants that such non-regularisation
was not attributable to any lapse on their part or intimation about
non-eligibility but was a consequence of administrative inaction on
the part of the Respondents.
11. Late Suraj Sah continued in service until attaining the age of
superannuation and retired on 31.12.2008. Appellant, Bahuru Sahu,
retired earlier on 30.04.2008, while Appellant, Pitamber Jha, retired
on 31.10.2015. Following his retirement, Late Suraj Sah was issued a
communication dated 06.04.2010 informing him of payment under the
Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS).
12. Late Suraj Sah subsequently passed away on 10.04.2015, leaving
behind his widow, Appellant, Bhikhani Devi and minor children.
Thereafter, Appellant, Bhikhani Devi approached the Respondent
authorities seeking grant of family pension requesting that the
service rendered under temporary status be counted for the purpose
of pensionary benefits. The other Appellants similarly submitted
representations in the years 2016 and 2017 seeking grant of
pensionary benefits.
13. The Respondents, however, rejected their claims on the ground
that the employees had not been ‘formally regularised’ as Group ‘D’
152 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
employees, which, according to the Respondents, was a mandatory
prerequisite for entitlement to pension under the applicable Scheme.
14. Aggrieved by such denial, Appellant - Bhikhani Devi instituted O.A.
No. 050/00372 of 2017 before the Tribunal, seeking grant of family
pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 [“CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972”], while the other two Appellants similarly
approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 050/00081 of 2018 and O.A.
No. 050/00609 of 2017, respectively, seeking pensionary benefits.
15. The Tribunal, by order dated 27.03.2018, allowed the Original
Application filed by Bhikhani Devi and directed the Respondents to
consider her claim in light of earlier decisions rendered in favour of
similarly situated employees. The Tribunal, by subsequent orders
30.07.2018 and 03.08.2018, allowed the Original Applications filed by
Appellants Bahuru Sahu and Pitambar Jha and issued similar directions.
16. The Respondent–Union of India challenged the said orders by
filing writ petitions before the High Court. The High Court, vide the
Impugned Judgments, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the
orders passed by the Tribunal. The High Court, inter alia, held that the
claims were liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches,
and further observed that in the absence of formal regularisation,
the Appellants were not entitled to pensionary benefits. The High
Court also took the view that the earlier decisions relied upon by
the Tribunal did not constitute binding precedent, as they had not
considered certain clauses of the Scheme.
17. Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgments, the present Appeals by
way of filing Special Leave Petitions before this Court have been
preferred by the Appellants.
18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that
that the claims of the Appellants could not have been rejected on
the ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as the claim for pension
constitutes a continuing cause of action. Reliance in this regard
has been placed upon the decision of this Court in M.L. Patil (Dead)
through LRs v. State of Goa and Another2, wherein it has been
held that pension is a recurring cause and therefore cannot be denied
on the ground of delay.
2 (2023) 1 SCC 660
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 153
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
19. On merits, the counsel submits that the Appellants having rendered
long and continuous uninterrupted service extending over
decades, and having been conferred temporary status, are entitled
to pensionary benefits under the applicable statutory framework. It
is contended that temporary government servants are not excluded
from the purview of pension, reliance is placed upon the Central
Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 [“CCS (Temporary
Service) Rules, 1965”], to contend that a temporary government
servant who retires upon attaining the age of superannuation after
rendering not less than the prescribed period of 10 years service,
shall be governed by the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972, and shall be entitled to superannuation pension, gratuity, and
family pension.
20. He further submits that an Office Memorandum bearing No. 2/4/87-
PIC dated 14.04.1987 issued under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972,
clarifies that even temporary government servants, upon rendering
the requisite period of service, are to be brought within the purview of
pensionary benefits, and that the requirement of holding a substantive
pensionable post stands dispensed with in such cases. It is thus
urged that the statutory framework does not exclude temporary
employees from pensionary entitlement, and any interpretation to
the contrary would be erroneous.
21. Learned counsel submits that in similar factual circumstances,
pensionary benefits have been extended to similarly situated
employees. Reference is made to the Order dated 03.09.2015 passed
by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 570 of 2013, granting pensionary benefits,
which was upheld by the High Court, and the same has subsequently
been implemented by the Respondents. It is contended that there exists
no distinguishing feature between the said case and the present case.
22. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of
this Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (supra), to contend that upon
completion of three years of continuous service with temporary status,
casual labourers are to be treated at par with Group ‘D’ employees
and are entitled to benefits admissible to regular employees.
23. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of this Court in
Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others3 and
3 (2024) 9 SCC 327
154 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Jaggo v. Union of India and Others4 to submit that employees
performing essential and continuous duties over long periods cannot
be treated as temporary or casual merely on account of nomenclature.
24. Learned counsel further submits that the circular/letter dated
30.11.1992 does not make regularisation a precondition for
entitlement to pension, but merely provides that 50% of the
service rendered under temporary status shall be counted for
the purpose of pension computation. It is contended that the
said circular deals with the quantum of pension, and not with the
entitlement, and any interpretation to the contrary is arbitrary.
25. He further submits that the Appellants upon being granted temporary
status were receiving regular pay and not contingency wages,
therefore, they cannot be said to be a part of an “extra-temporary
establishment”. He rests his submissions by stating that denial of
pensionary benefits to employees who have rendered long years
of service, particularly those belonging to economically weaker
sections, on the ground of financial burden, is arbitrary and contrary
to constitutional principles of social justice and fairness.
26. Per contra, learned A.S.G. appearing on behalf of the Respondents–
Union of India supported the impugned judgments and contends that
the Department has strictly acted in accordance with the Scheme,
which exclusively governs the service conditions of the Appellants.
27. He submits that conferment of temporary status does not confer
any right to regularisation. Reliance is placed upon Paragraphs 6
and 7 of the Scheme to contend that 50% of the service rendered
under temporary status is to be counted for the purpose of
retirement benefits only after regularisation as a Group ‘D’
employee, and that conferment of temporary status does not
automatically entail appointment against a regular post. It is contended
that appointments to Group ‘D’ posts are governed by the applicable
Recruitment Rules and are subject to availability of vacancies and
selection in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
28. He contends that, as per Paragraph 8 of the Scheme and departmental
letter dated 30.11.1992, after rendering three years of continuous
service with temporary status, casual labourers are merely treated at
4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 155
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees for limited purposes, such
as contribution to the General Provident Fund and eligibility for certain
advances. However, such parity does not extend to pensionary or
retiral benefits, which are contingent upon formal regularisation.
29. Learned A.S.G. further submits that the service conditions of the
Appellants are governed exclusively by the Scheme and not by
the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 or the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972. It is contended that a clear distinction exists between
a “temporary government servant” and a “temporary status casual
labourer”, the former being governed by statutory service rules,
whereas the latter is governed by the Scheme. Reliance is placed upon
Rule 1(4)(d) and (e) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965,
to contend that the said Rules do not apply to persons employed in
extra-temporary establishments or those paid out of contingencies.
30. It is further submitted that the Department has, in fact, framed
successive Recruitment Rules, which provide for a channel of
regularisation, including reservation of a percentage of vacancies for
casual labourers with temporary status. However, since the Appellants
were never selected or regularised under these Rules during their
service tenure, they cannot now claim pensionary benefits. Reliance
is placed upon the decision of this Court in Indian Council of
Agricultural Research and Another v. Santosh5, to contend that
in the absence of regularisation, no pensionary benefits entitlement
could be claimed.
31. Lastly, learned A.S.G. submits a chart indicating the service particulars
of the employees, to demonstrate that none of the Appellants were
regularised prior to their retirement, and did not fulfil the eligibility
criteria for pensionary benefits, and extending such benefits would
have significant financial implications for the Respondents.
32. Having heard the counsel for both the parties and on perusal
of pleadings and material on record, the issue that arises for
consideration can be carved out as follows:
‘Whether temporary status casual labourer, in the absence
of a formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to
pensionary benefits on superannuation or not?’
5 (2006) 11 SCC 157
156 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
33. Before adverting to the above question and interpreting the Scheme
involved in the present factual matrix, we find it apposite to delineate
the legal framework governing the rights of casual and temporary
employees. This Court has over the years developed jurisprudence
concerning rights of casual labourers and temporary employees
which needs to be adverted to.
34. In Jagrit Mazdoor Union (supra), this Court held that upon
conferment of temporary status and completion of three years of
continuous service, casual labourers are to be treated at par with
Group ‘D’ employees and would thereby be entitled to such benefits
admissible to regular employees. The Court observed that there
could be no justification in withholding benefits from such employees
and emphasised the obligation of the State, as a model employer,
to act in consonance with the Directive Principles of State Policy as
provided in the Constitution of India.
35. Further, in Vinod Kumar (supra), this Court recognised that where
employees have rendered continuous service, performing duties
indistinguishable from those discharged by regular employees, the
distinction between temporary and permanent employment becomes
substantively illusory and the failure to recognise the true nature of
such service would be contrary to the principles of equity and fairness.
36. In Jaggo (supra), this Court reiterated that employees labelled as
temporary or part-time, but who have in fact rendered continuous
and essential service over long periods, cannot be denied benefits
available to regular employees merely on account of nomenclature.
The Court held that such engagement is neither sporadic nor casual,
but is in the nature of regular employment, thereby necessitating
extension of all corresponding service benefits.
37. In this context, the principle laid down by this Court in Yashwant Hari
Katakkar v. Union of India and Others6 also assumes significance,
wherein this Court held that where an employee has rendered long
years of service and there is no justifiable reason for not conferring
permanent status, it would be a travesty of justice to deny pensionary
benefits merely on the ground of absence of formal regularisation,
and such an employee is liable to be treated as having attained
permanent status.
6 (1996) 7 SCC 113
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 157
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
38. Perusal of the above decisions of this Court establish a consistent
judicial approach that 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. 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.
39. This approach is firmly rooted in the constitutional mandate of
equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Any classification, resulting in denial of any benefits to a class of
employees who are otherwise similarly situated in terms of duties
and responsibilities would fall foul of constitutional ethos. Further,
the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 38, 39
and 43, cast a positive obligation upon the State to ensure social and
economic justice, fair conditions of work, and a decent standard of
life for labourers. Pension, in this context, is not a gratuitous benefit
but a facet of social welfare and economic justice.
40. The concept of the State as a model employer, read in conjunction
with the aforesaid constitutional mandate, reinforces the obligation
upon the State to extend fair and equitable treatment to employees
who have rendered long and continuous service and that the
State cannot extract services of a permanent nature while denying
corresponding benefits.
41. At this stage, it is also necessary to note that pension is not a bounty
but a vested and enforceable constitutional right. This Court in State
of Jharkhand and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and
Another7 has categorically held that pension is a hard-earned benefit
amassed by an employee by virtue of long and continuous service
and is in the nature of “property” within the meaning of Article 300A
of the Constitution of India.
42. Once pension is recognised as a constitutional right in the nature
of property, it cannot be taken away except by authority of law. A
statutory right cannot be rendered illusory on account of inaction of
the employer, and such inaction cannot defeat or deny a constitutional
7 (2013) 12 SCC 210
158 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
right. It is in the light of this above discussed judicial approach of
this Court over a period of time, the provisions of the Scheme and
the subsequent applicable circulars must be read, understood and
interpreted.
43. Let us, now, turn to the Scheme that is applicable to the facts of
the present case. The principles emanating from Jagrit Mazdoor
Union (supra), as discussed hereinabove, are directly incorporated
in formation of the said Scheme. The relevant portion of the decision
is reproduced herein:
“…After rendering three years of continuous service with
temporary status, the casual labourers shall be treated at
par with temporary Grade ‘D’ employees of the Department
of Posts and would thereby be entitled to such benefits as
are admissible to Group ‘D’ employees on regular basis.”
(emphasis supplied)
44. In compliance of the above, the Department of Posts formulated
the Scheme for integration of casual labourers within the structured
service framework, progressive extension of service benefits to
such employees ultimately leading to their regularization in service.
It would be apposite to refer to the text of the 1991 Scheme, which
reads as follows:
“ Government of India
Ministry of Communications
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110001
NO: 45-95/87-SPB.I
New Delhi, dated 12.4.1991
To:
All CPMG/PMG
All Principals, PTC
Controller Foreign Mails, Mumbai
Director, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai National Postal Academy,
Ghaziabad
Heads of all other Administrative Offices.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 159
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
Subject: Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status
and Regularisation) Scheme.
Sir,
In compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, a scheme was drawn up by this Department
in consultation with the Ministries of Law, Finance &
Personnel, and the President has been pleased to approve
the said scheme. The Scheme is as follows:
1. “Temporary Status” would be conferred on the casual
labourers in employment as on 29.11.89 and who
continue to be currently employed and have rendered
continuous service of at least one year. During the
year they must have been engaged for a period of
240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing
five days weeks)
2. Such casual workers engaged for full working hours
viz., 8 hours including ½ hour’s lunch time will be
paid at daily rates on the basis of the minimum of
the pay scale for a regular Group D official including
DA, HRA and CCA.
3. Benefit of increment at the same rate as applicable
to a Group D employee would be taken into account
for one year of service from the date of conferment
of Temporary Status. Such increment will be taken
into account after every one year of service subject
to performance of duty for at least 240 days (206
days in establishments observing five days week)
in the year.
4. Leave entitlement will be one day for every 10 days
of work. Casual Leave or any other kind of leave
except maternity leave, will not be admissible. No
encashment of leave is permissible on termination
of services for any reason or on the casual labourers
quitting service.
5. Maternity leave to lady full time casual labourers
will be allowed as admissible to regular Group D
employees.
160 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
6. 50% of the service rendered under Temporary Status
would be counted for the purpose of retirement
benefits after regularization as a regular Group D
official.
7. Conferment of Temporary Status does not automatically
imply that the casual labourers would be appointed
as a regular Group D employee within any fixed
time frame. Appointment to Group D vacancies will
continue to be done as per extant recruitment rules,
which stipulate preference to eligible LD employees.
8. After rendering three years continuous service after
conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers
would be treated at par with temporary group D
employees for the purpose of contribution to GPF.
They would also further be eligible for the grant
of Festival Advance/Flood Advance on the same
conditions as are applicable to temporary group D
employees, provided they furnish two sureties from
permanent Govt. Servants of this Department.
9. Their entitlement to Productivity Linked Bonus
will continue to be at the rate applicable to casual
labourers.
10. Temporary status does not debar dispensing with
the services of a casual labourer after following the
due procedure.
11. If a labourer with temporary status commits a
misconduct and the same is proved in an enquiry
after giving him reasonable opportunity, his services
will be dispensed with.
12. Casual Labourers may be regularised in units other
than recruiting units also, subject to availability of
vacancies.
13. For purpose of appointment as a regular group D
official, the casual labourers will be allowed age
relaxation to the extent of service rendered by them
as casual labourers.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 161
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
14. The casual labourers can be deployed, anywhere
within the recruitment unit /territorial circle on the
basis of availability of work.
15. The engagement of casual labourers will continue to
be on daily rates of pay on need basis.
16. The conferment of temporary status has no relation
to availability of sanctioned regular group D
posts.
17. No recruitment from open market for group D posts
except compassionate appointments will be done till
casual labourers with the requisite qualifications are
available to fill up the posts in question.
Further action may be taken in regard to the casual
labourers by each unit, as per the above said scheme.
This issues with the approval of Ministry of Finance
and concurrence of Integrated Finance vide their
Dy.No.1282-FA/91 dated 10.4.91.
Hindi version will follow.
Sd/-
(T.S. GOVINDRAJAN)
DIRECTOR (Staff)
Copy to:
1. The Officer-in Charge, APS Record Office
2. SPB.II/Admn./Vig.I, II, III/NCG/PAP/FAP/ Pension/PE-I/
PE.II/EB/SR/Inspn./SR/ STN/Civil Wing (Postal)/ Postal
Accounts Section of the Directorate.
3. All recognized Unions/Associations
4. All dealing hands.
Sd/-
(R. KRINSHNAMOORTHY)
Asstt. Director General (SPN)”
45. Clause 2 of the Scheme provides that casual labourers, upon
conferment of temporary status, shall be paid wages on the basis
of the minimum of the pay scale applicable to regular Group ‘D’
162 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
employees together with Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance
and City Compensatory Allowance. The grant of pay and such
other service benefits clearly indicates that the Scheme intended to
move casual labourers away from the purely casual or daily-rated
framework to progressively align their service conditions with the
regular establishment.
46. Clause 4 further grants leave entitlement to temporary status
employees. Though the nature of leave admissible thereunder may
not be identical to that available to regular employees, the very
conferment of leave entitlement signifies that such employees are
no longer to be treated as mere casual labourers engaged on a
day-to-day basis, but as employees occupying a recognised and
continuing position within the service structure.
47. Clause 6 of the Scheme is of considerable significance and forms the
central feature of the present controversy. The said clause provides
for counting of a part of the service rendered under temporary
status for the purpose of retirement benefits on regularisation as
Group ‘D’ employee. The very incorporation of such a stipulation
recognises the pensionable character of service rendered under
temporary status.
48. Although clause 7 indicates that conferment of temporary status does
not automatically imply appointment as a regular Group ‘D’ employee
within a fixed time frame and that appointments to Group ‘D’ vacancies
would continue to be governed by the applicable Recruitment Rules.
However, the said clause cannot be read in isolation so as to defeat
the overall beneficial structure of the Scheme. The clause merely
clarifies that automatic absorption is not contemplated immediately
upon conferment of temporary status; it does not dilute the clear
intent of the Scheme to progressively integrate such employees
within the regular service framework.
49. Clause 8 further reinforces the aforesaid position. The said clause
expressly provides that after rendering three years of continuous
service under temporary status, casual labourers shall be treated at
par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees for purposes of contribution
to General Provident Fund and grant of advances admissible to
such employees. The phrase “treated at par with temporary Group
‘D’ employees” assumes considerable significance. The Scheme
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 163
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
contemplates extension of benefits admissible to temporary Group
‘D’ employees after completion of the prescribed period of service
under temporary status.
50. Clauses 12 and 13 further indicate that the Scheme was intended as a
pathway towards regularisation and not as a mechanism for perpetual
retention in temporary status. Clause 12 permits regularisation even
in units other than recruiting units subject to availability of vacancies,
thereby enlarging avenues for absorption. Clause 13 grants age
relaxation equivalent to the service rendered as casual labourers
for purposes of regular appointment. These provisions unmistakably
demonstrate that the Scheme consciously sought to facilitate eventual
integration by absorption/regularisation of such employees into the
regular establishment.
51. Clause 17 assumes equal significance in understanding the true
intent underlying the Scheme. It mandates that no recruitment from
open market for Group ‘D’ posts, except compassionate appointment,
shall be undertaken so long as eligible casual labourers possessing
requisite qualifications are available for appointment. Such a provision
clearly manifests the intention of the Scheme to accord primacy to
existing temporary status casual labourers for eventual absorption
against Group ‘D’ posts and to ensure that such employees are not
indefinitely deprived of regular service benefits despite long years
of continuous service.
52. A cumulative reading of the Scheme clearly establishes that it was
conceived as a beneficial and progressive framework intended to
gradually extend to temporary status casual labourers the service
conditions and benefits associated with Group ‘D’ employees and
it cannot be construed in any other manner so as to restrict and
defeat its object of assimilation of casual labourers to regular
employees.
53. In furtherance of the Scheme, a circular dated 30.11.1992 came to
be issued by the Respondents. The said circular provided that the
casual labourers conferred with temporary status as per the Scheme
be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees with effect
from the date of completion of three years of service in the temporary
status. It would be apposite to reproduce the said circular dated
30.11.1992, which reads as follows:
164 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“ GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS
(DEPARTMENT OF POSTS)
DAK BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG
No.66-9/91-SPB-I
New Delhi dated the 30, Nov., 1992
To,
All Chief Postmasters
General/Postmaster General
All Principals, Postal Training Centres,
Controller Foreign Mails, Bombay
Director Postal Staff College, Ghaziabad.
Heads of all other Administrative Offices.
Subject: Regularisation of Casual labourers.
Sir,
Vide this office circular letter No.45-95/87-SPB-I dated
12.4.1991, a scheme for giving temporary status to casual
labourers fulfilling certain conditions was circulated.
2. In their judgement dated 29.11.1989, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held that after rendering three years
of continuous service with temporary status, the casual
labourers shall be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’
employees of the Department of Posts and would thereby
be entitled to such benefits as are admissible to Group D
employees on regular basis.
3. In compliance with the above-said directive of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court it has been decided that the Casual
labourers of this Department conferred with temporary
status as per the scheme circulated in the above-said
circular No.45-95/87-SPB-I dated 12.4.1991 be treated at
par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees with effect from
the date they complete three years of service in the newly
acquired temporary status as per the above-said scheme.
From that date they will be entitled to benefits admissible
to temporary Group employees such as:
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 165
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
1. All kinds of leave admissible to temporary employees.
2. Holidays as admissible to regular employees.
3. Counting of service for the purpose of pension
and terminal benefits as in the case of temporary
employees appointed on regular basis for those
temporary employees who are given temporary status
and who complete 3 years of service in that status
while granting them pension and retirement benefits
after their regularisation.
4. Central Government Employees Insurance Scheme.
5. G.P.F.
6. Medical Aid.
7. L.T.C.
8. All advances admissible to temporary Group D
employees
9. Bonus.
4. Further action may be taken accordingly and proper
service records of such employees may also be
maintained.
5. Hindi version will follow.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
(R.KRIGHNAMOORTHY)
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL (SPN)
Copy to:-
The Officer in Charge – APS Record Office, Kamptee, APO
SPB-/Admn/Vig.III/II/I/NCG/PAP/Pen./PE-I&II/EB/SR/STN/
Civil Wing(P)/Postal Accounts Section of the Directorate.
All Recognised Unions/Associations.
Sd/-
(R.KRISHNAMOORTHY)
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL (SPN)”
166 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
54. The enumeration of benefits listed in the circular dated 30.11.1992,
includes leave, holidays, GPF, medical facilities, LTC, bonus, and
other service benefits admissible to Temporary Group ‘D’ employees,
clearly demonstrates that temporary status employees are to be
functionally assimilated into the service framework of Temporary
Group ‘D’ employees.
55. It may be noted here that the Respondents contend that temporary
status casual labourers are extended only the benefits that are
specified in the Scheme and Circular dated 30.11.1992 and are
not entitled for pensionary benefits. The said submission, in our
considered opinion, is misconceived. The expression “benefits
admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees such as”, made use
of in the circular is of considerable importance. The utilisation of
the words “such as” clearly indicates that the benefits enumerated
therein are illustrative and neither restrictive nor exhaustive. This is
also evident from the observations in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (supra),
which form basis of the Scheme and Circular dated 30.11.1992, and
provides to extend all benefits as admissible to temporary Group
‘D’ employees without any restrictions. Therefore, the circular, as
earlier observed, being a beneficial legislation, cannot be read and
understood in a restrictive manner rather the correct approach of
interpretation would be to analyse it in the letter and spirit of the
legislative and administrative intent i.e. to extend all benefits as are
available to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, to temporary status
casual labourers including pensionary benefits.
56. Before proceeding further, it becomes necessary to deal with another
contention advanced on behalf of the Respondents that Clause 6
of the Scheme contemplates counting of 50% service rendered
under temporary status towards retirement benefits only after
formal regularisation as Group ‘D’ employee and, therefore, in the
absence of regularisation, no pensionary benefits can be granted.
The said submission cannot be accepted in the manner sought to be
canvassed. Clause 6 cannot be read in isolation divorced from the
principles and purpose underlying the Scheme and the circular dated
30.11.1992. The judgment of this Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union
(supra), which forms the basis of the Scheme itself, categorically
directed that upon completion of three years of continuous service
under temporary status, casual labourers ‘would thereby be entitled to
benefits as are admissible to Group ‘D’ employees on regular basis’.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 167
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
The circular dated 30.11.1992 further clarifies that such employees
would be entitled to counting of service for pension and terminal
benefits as admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees.
57. The expression “after regularisation” occurring in Clause 6 cannot
be construed in a narrow or restrictive manner so as to defeat the
beneficial object underlying the Scheme and must be construed in its
proper context. Clause 6 does not create the pensionary entitlement
itself, rather, it provides an additional benefit by directing that half of
the service rendered under temporary status to be counted towards
grant of retirement benefits upon regularisation. 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. Clause 6 has to be interpreted
harmoniously and would construe to mean that in cases where formal
orders of regularisation are passed, 50% of the service rendered under
temporary status would be liable to be counted towards retirement
and pensionary benefits as additional benefit apart from the benefits
as available under the rules which become applicable to a regular
government employee. Consequently, while Clause 6 may operate to
confer an additional advantage in cases where regularisation takes
place, the absence of formal regularisation cannot be construed as
extinguishing or defeating the underlying entitlement to pensionary
benefits.
58. At this stage, it also becomes necessary to appreciate the distinction
between different categories of employees engaged within the service
framework in the Department of Posts. Broadly, four categories
of employees emerge from the statutory and administrative work
structure involved in the matter at hand, namely: (i) casual labourers;
(ii) temporary status casual labourers; (iii) temporary Government
employees; and (iv) regular Government employees.
59. A casual labourer is merely a daily-rated worker engaged on need
basis and is entitled only to daily wages for the period during which
work is performed. Such employee does not possess any structured
service status nor entitled to any service benefits ordinarily available
to Government employees.
60. The second category is that of a temporary status casual labourer.
The conferment of temporary status not only initiates the process of
integration of such employee within a structured service framework but
168 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
extends certain service protections and benefits under the Scheme.
Nevertheless, such employee remains a temporary status casual
labourer and does not become a temporary Government servant.
61. The third category is that of temporary Government employees which
are governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, while
the fourth category comprises of regular Government employees
governed by the regular service rules applicable to permanent
Government servants.
62. It is to be noted that these aforesaid four categories are not to
be conflated as stages required to be gone through to become a
regular employee. It may be pointed here that a casual labourer can
directly become a regular employee, if the Scheme provides for such
transition. A temporary Government employee, however, definitely has
two stages leading to permanent employment i.e. initial appointment
as temporary Government employee and upon confirmation in service,
his status is changed to regular government employee.
63. For casual labourers, the Scheme provides for a progression to
regular employment. Initially the employee enters service as a casual
labourer. Thereafter, upon satisfying the conditions prescribed under
Clause 1 of the Scheme, he/she is conferred temporary status and
continues under such status. Upon completion of the prescribed
conditions and subject to the applicable Recruitment Rules, the
employee becomes eligible for regularisation against Group ‘D’ posts
and ultimately regularized and appointed as regular employee on
availability of vacancies.
64. The Scheme, in question, which provides for grant of temporary status
and regularisation for casual labourers recognises four categories
of employees operating within the service structure, however, the
progression contemplated therein essentially unfolds in three stages
i.e. engagement as a casual labourer, conferment and continuance of
temporary status, and eventual regularisation against Group ‘D’ posts.
65. It is apposite to highlight and emphasize that although under the
Scheme the temporary status of casual labourers continues till his
regularization in service, however, on completion of the period of
three years, the service conditions are materially changed as he is
treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees and extended
all benefits that are admissible to such employees.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 169
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
66. The submission advanced on behalf of the Respondents, that under
the Scheme the employees continue merely as temporary status
casual labourers and are distinct from the temporary Government
servants, and so would be the pensionary framework applicable.
At first blush, this contention appears to be correct to an extent.
However, on due consideration and deliberation of the Scheme and
its various clauses as a whole, the submission aforesaid is found
to be misplaced.
67. Although, it may be correct to say that conferment of temporary
status on a casual labourer under the Scheme does not ipso facto
transform such employee into a temporary Government servant,
however, what falls short from the aforesaid submission is that
while the status of such employee continues unchanged i.e., of
a ‘temporary status casual labourers’, the Scheme consciously
and specifically extends to such employees benefits admissible to
temporary Group ‘D’ employees upon completion of three years of
continuous service under temporary status. The service conditions,
at this juncture, of the casual temporary status employee under
the Scheme gets substantially changed and carries all the benefits
that are available to temporary government employees. Therefore,
while the nomenclature and category of their service status remain
unchanged, the nature and extent of benefits now available to them
stand significantly enlarged and aligned with those admissible to
temporary Government employees, blurring the distinction between
both categories as far as benefits available to them are concerned.
The distinction that remains is one relating to nomenclature, formal
status and mode of regularisation but not to the nature of extended
benefits.
68. In other words, the Scheme nowhere provides that upon completion of
three years’ service under temporary status, the employee becomes
a temporary Government servant. What it specifically provides is
that such employee shall be treated at par with temporary Group
‘D’ employees for purposes of extension of admissible benefits.
The parity contemplated under the Scheme is thus parity in service
benefits and not identity of service status.
69. Once the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992 consciously
extend benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, the
Respondents cannot rely solely upon the nomenclature of ‘temporary
170 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
status casual labourer’ to deny those very benefits. The entire
framework of the Scheme proceeds upon extension of substantive
service benefits despite continuance of the original nomenclature as
temporary status casual labourer.
70. As already discussed hereinabove, the Scheme and the circular
dated 30.11.1992 extend to temporary status employees all the
benefits that are available to temporary Group ‘D’ employees. Now,
it becomes necessary to examine the nature of pensionary benefits
available to such temporary Government employees under the
statutory framework.
71. The services of the temporary Government servants are governed
by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. It is not disputed
that a temporary Government servant is entitled to terminal benefits
including pension and on his death family pension. Rule 10(1-B) of the
said Rules specifically provides that where a temporary Government
servant retires on attaining the age of superannuation after rendering
temporary service of not less than ten years, such employee shall
be entitled to superannuation pension and retirement gratuity and on
death family pension in accordance with the provisions of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 10(1-B) is reproduced herein:
“10. Terminal gratuity payable to temporary Government
servants.
xxx xxx xxx
(1-B) In the case of a temporary Government servant who
retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation
or on his being declared to be permanently incapacitated
for further Government service by the appropriate medical
authority, after he has rendered temporary service of not
less than 10 years or who has sought voluntary retirement
by giving three months’ notice in writing on completion of
20 years’ service, provisions of sub-rule (1) shall not apply
and in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972-
(i) such a Government servant shall be eligible for the
grant of superannuation, invalid or retiring pension, as the
case may be, and retirement gratuity; and
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 171
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
(ii) in the event of his death after retirement, the members
of his family shall be eligible for the grant of family pension.
xxx xxx xxx
72. As is apparent from the above, the statutory framework governing
temporary Government employees itself accepts and acknowledges
entitlement of pensionary benefits and that the same are not confined
only to regular permanent employees but are also available to
temporary Government servants upon completion of the prescribed
qualifying service. The CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 thus
constitute the statutory source recognising pensionary entitlement of
temporary employees who have rendered specified and continuous
service.
73. The contention of the Respondents that the Appellants were paid out
of contingencies and therefore stood excluded from the purview of
the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 also cannot be accepted
in the particular facts of the present case. Such exclusion may have
relevance at the stage of initial engagement as casual labourers.
However, the service conditions of the Appellants underwent a
substantial transformation upon extension of benefits admissible
to temporary Group ‘D’ employees. The continued reliance by
the Respondents upon the original mode of engagement, while
simultaneously extending pay parity, increments, GPF facilities, leave
benefits and other service entitlements akin to temporary Group
‘D’ employees, would amount to selectively accepting one part of
the Scheme while disregarding the other. Such an approach would
defeat the very object underlying the Scheme and the circular dated
30.11.1992. Once parity in service benefits with temporary Group ‘D’
employees is consciously extended under the Scheme, pensionary
benefits flowing under Rule 10(1-B) of the Rules of 1965 cannot
be selectively denied by ignoring or overlooking the statutory right.
74. The argument founded upon financial burden is equally untenable.
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. As already noticed hereinabove, this Court has
recognised pension as a constitutional right in the nature of property
protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India as held in
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Case (supra) and it, therefore, cannot
be denied on the plea of financial burden.
172 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
75. From the above discussion what follows is that when the statutory
framework including CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is read
in conjunction with the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992,
the inescapable conclusion which emerges is that a casual labour,
on being conferred the temporary status, upon completion of three
years of continuous service as temporary status casual labourer
becomes entitled to benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’
employees, which necessarily includes pensionary benefits available
under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965
subject, of course, to fulfilling the eligibility criteria provided therein.
This right is not dependent on regularisation. What is conceived is
conferring of additional benefit of previous service under the Scheme
as would be available to an employee on regularisation apart from
the benefits conferred under the rules becoming applicable on this
now acquired new status of a regular employee.
76. The question as framed in para 32 above stands answered as follows:
‘A temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to
pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence
of regularisation.’
77. What remains to be seen now is whether the Appellants, in the
cases before us, fulfil the eligibility criteria under Rule 10 (1-B)
of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 so as to be entitled for
pensionary benefits.
78. The service trajectory of Late Suraj Sah as per the material placed
on record, thus falls into three distinct phases: (i) service as a casual
labourer from 1972 till 29.11.1989; (ii) service as a temporary status
casual labourer from 29.11.1989 till 30.11.1992; and (iii) continuance
as a temporary status casual labourer with entitlement to benefits
admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees from 30.11.1992 till
his superannuation on 31.12.2008.
79. From the above what emerges is that Late Suraj Sah was initially
engaged as a casual labourer in the year 1972 and continued as
such till 29.11.1989. During this period, he remained a daily-rated
worker and was not entitled to any service benefits. Upon introduction
of the Scheme, he was conferred temporary status with effect from
29.11.1989. Thereafter, upon completion of three years of continuous
service under temporary status on 30.11.1992, though his formal
status continued to remain that of a temporary status casual labourer,
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 173
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
he became entitled to the benefits admissible to temporary Group
‘D’ employees. Thus, while his nomenclature remained unchanged,
his service benefits thereafter stood aligned with those admissible to
temporary Group ‘D’ employees as per the Scheme and the circular
dated 30.11.1992. He ultimately superannuated on 31.12.2008 while
continuing as a temporary status casual labourer. So from 30.11.1992
till the date of superannuation i.e. 31.12.2008, the period being more
than the minimum of 10 years, he became entitled for benefits under
Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read
with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Thereby making him entitled
to grant of superannuation pension and other retirement benefits as
admissible under the above rules.
80. The service records of Bahuru Sahu and Pitamber Jha would also
reflect that they were, after initial appointment as casual labourers,
conferred temporary status, w.e.f. 29.11.1989 till 30.11.1992 and
continued as temporary status casual labourers till their date of
superannuation 30.04.2008 and 31.10.2015 respectively. The period
being in excess of minimum qualifying service of ten years for
entitlement of pension, they would be entitled to grant of all retiral
benefits as available under the Rules.
81. Insofar as the contention of the Respondents with regard to delay
and laches is concerned, it is well settled that pensionary benefits
constitute a continuing cause of action, and a claim for pension cannot
be defeated solely on the ground of delay. At the same time, the claim
for arrears is required to be balanced with settled principles governing
limitation. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record
to indicate that the Appellants had raised any claim for pensionary
benefits prior to filing of the respective Original Applications before
the Tribunal. In such circumstances, while the entitlement of the
Appellants to pensionary and consequential retiral benefits stands
established, the arrears thereof, wherever applicable, shall remain
confined to the period of three years and two months preceding the
date of filing of the respective Original Applications before the Tribunal,
consistent with settled principles governing service jurisprudence.
82. Consequently, Appellant, Bhikhani Devi, being the widow and legal
representative of Late Suraj Sah, shall be entitled to pensionary
benefits accrued to Late Suraj Sah, if any, together with admissible
family pension. Similarly, Appellant, Bahuru Sahu shall be entitled
to pensionary and consequential retiral benefits in accordance with
174 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
law. However, the arrears payable to them shall remain confined to
the period of three years and two months preceding the date of filing
of the Original Application before the Tribunal.
83. Likewise, Appellant, Pitamber Jha, who superannuated from service
on 31.10.2015, shall also be entitled to pensionary and consequential
retiral benefits in accordance with law from the date of his retirement.
84. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings recorded hereinabove,
we are of the considered opinion that the Impugned Judgments
passed by the High Court proceeded on an erroneous interpretation
of the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992. The same are
unsustainable in law and are, therefore, set aside.
85. The Respondents are accordingly directed to compute and release
the pensionary and consequential retiral benefits payable to the
Appellants in accordance with law within a period of three months
from the date of this judgment. In case of default, interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of accrual till disbursement shall be payable
to the appellants.
86. The Appeals are allowed in above terms.
87. There shall be no order as to cost.
88. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Casual labourers"Sign in to search