The Supreme Court of India, comprising a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, has ruled that temporary status casual labourers are legally entitled to pensionary benefits upon their superannuation even if they have not been formally regularised in service. In a significant judgment upholding the rights of long-serving casual employees, the apex court set aside the orders of the Patna High Court which had denied pensionary benefits to three former postal department workers on the grounds of administrative non-regularisation and delay. The court clarified that once casual labourers are conferred temporary status and completed three years of continuous service under such status, they are to be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees, thereby making them eligible for pension and other retirement benefits.
Background of the Case
The appellants in these civil appeals are either former casual employees or the legal representatives of deceased employees who rendered several decades of continuous service as Night Guards under the Department of Posts in Bihar.
The first appellant, Bhikhani Devi, is the widow of Late Suraj Sah, who was appointed as a paid casual labourer (Night Guard) at the Rajnagar Post Office in Madhubani District on February 12, 1972. The second appellant, Bahuru Sahu, was appointed on October 10, 1971, and the third appellant, Pitamber Jha, was appointed on June 20, 1981. All three employees rendered decades of uninterrupted service without formal regularisation.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) and Others v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Another (1990), the Department of Posts formulated the “Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991”. Under this Scheme, the three workers were conferred “temporary status” on November 20, 1992, with retrospective effect from November 29, 1989.
Subsequently, a departmental circular dated November 30, 1992, established that casual labourers with temporary status who rendered three years of continuous service would be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees, entitling them to service benefits including leave, holidays, and consideration of service for pension and terminal benefits upon regularisation. A memo dated May 3, 2000, formally directed that Suraj Sah and Bahuru Sahu be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees.
Despite their long service, the respondents never formally regularised these employees due to administrative inaction. Bahuru Sahu retired on April 30, 2008, Suraj Sah retired on December 31, 2008, and Pitamber Jha retired on October 31, 2015.
Following Suraj Sah’s death on April 10, 2015, his widow Bhikhani Devi sought a family pension, which was rejected by the authorities because her husband had not been ‘formally regularised’ in a Group ‘D’ post. Similar claims by Bahuru Sahu and Pitamber Jha were rejected on identical grounds.
The appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna, which allowed their applications in 2018 and directed the Union of India to consider their claims. However, the Union of India challenged these orders before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the CAT orders, holding that the claims were barred by delay and laches and that the lack of formal regularisation legally precluded them from receiving pensionary benefits. This led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the appellants argued that pension is a recurring cause of action and therefore cannot be denied on the ground of delay and laches, relying on M.L. Patil (Dead) through LRs v. State of Goa and Another (2023). On the merits, the counsel asserted that the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and an Office Memorandum dated April 14, 1987, clearly extend superannuation pension, gratuity, and family pension to temporary government servants who retire after rendering at least 10 years of service, dispensing with the need to hold a substantive permanent post.
The appellants cited Jagrit Mazdoor Union to argue that completing three years of continuous temporary status placed them at par with Group ‘D’ employees. They further relied on Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others (2024) and Jaggo v. Union of India and Others (2024) to argue that employees performing essential duties over long periods cannot be denied regular benefits merely due to nomenclature. They also submitted that the 1992 circular did not make regularisation a precondition for pension, but merely regulated the quantum (50% of temporary status service) to be counted for pension computation.
In response, the learned Additional Solicitor General (A.S.G.) appearing for the Union of India contended that the 1991 Scheme exclusively governed the appellants’ services. The A.S.G. highlighted Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Scheme to argue that 50% of temporary status service counts toward retirement benefits only after formal regularisation, which is subject to recruitment rules and vacancy availability.
The respondents argued that the parity established after three years of temporary status under Paragraph 8 of the Scheme was limited to General Provident Fund contributions and festival advances, not extending to pensionary benefits. The A.S.G. further contended that statutory rules like the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, do not apply to contingency-paid employees or extra-temporary establishments. Highlighting the service particulars of the appellants, the A.S.G. asserted that none were regularised prior to retirement and warned of significant financial implications if pensionary benefits were extended.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the legal framework governing casual and temporary employees, tracing a consistent judicial approach. The court referenced Jagrit Mazdoor Union, Vinod Kumar, and Jaggo to stress that long-serving casual employees performing the same duties as regular employees cannot be kept in a precarious condition.
The court placed strong emphasis on the principle established in Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India and Others (1996), noting 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.”
Analyzing the nature of pension, the court referred to State of Jharkhand and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another (2013), stating 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.”
The court further observed: “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.”
In interpreting the 1991 Scheme and the 1992 circular, the court rejected the respondents’ narrow construction of Clause 6 (counting 50% service “after regularisation”). It held that Clause 6 does not create the pensionary entitlement itself, which flows independently from the Scheme and the 1992 circular, but merely provides an additional benefit of counting half of the temporary status service. The court clarified that the absence of a formal regularisation order cannot defeat the underlying right to a pension.
The court outlined four categories within the postal department: casual labourers, temporary status casual labourers, temporary Government employees, and regular Government employees. It noted that while a temporary status casual labourer does not automatically become a temporary Government servant, the 1991 Scheme and 1992 circular explicitly extend benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees to those who complete three years of temporary status service. The court noted that the phrase “benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees such as” used in the circular indicates that the listed benefits are illustrative, not exhaustive.
Addressing the statutory rules, the court examined Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, which provides that temporary Government servants retiring on superannuation after rendering at least ten years of service are eligible for superannuation pension, retirement gratuity, and family pension. The court rejected the argument that the appellants were contingency-paid employees excluded from these rules, observing that the department had extended regular pay scales, increments, and GPF facilities, thereby functionally aligning them with temporary Group ‘D’ employees.
The court also dismissed the Union of India’s arguments concerning financial burden, stating: “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.”
Consequently, the court answered the central legal issue by stating: “A temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence of regularisation.”
Regarding delay and laches, the court agreed that pension constitutes a continuing cause of action. However, to balance this with settled principles of limitation, the court directed that because the appellants had not raised claims prior to filing their Original Applications, their arrears must be restricted to a period of three years and two months preceding the date of filing their respective applications before the CAT.
The Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court of Judicature at Patna had proceeded on an erroneous interpretation of the 1991 Scheme and the 1992 circular. Consequently, the apex court set aside the Patna High Court’s judgments and allowed the appeals.
The court declared that Suraj Sah (represented by Bhikhani Devi), Bahuru Sahu, and Pitamber Jha completed the minimum qualifying service of 10 years after completing three years of continuous service under temporary status, making them eligible for pension.
The court issued the following directions:
- Bhikhani Devi is entitled to the pensionary benefits accrued to her late husband Suraj Sah, along with the admissible family pension.
- Bahuru Sahu is entitled to pensionary and consequential retiral benefits.
- Arrears for Bhikhani Devi and Bahuru Sahu are restricted to the period of three years and two months preceding the filing of their respective Original Applications before the Tribunal.
- Pitamber Jha is entitled to pensionary and consequential retiral benefits from the date of his retirement on October 31, 2015.
- The respondents must compute and release these benefits within three months. In case of default, interest at the rate of 6% per annum must be paid from the date of accrual till disbursement.
Case Details
Case Title: Bhikhani Devi and etc. v. Union of India and Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 28802-28804 of 2019)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date: June 01, 2026
