Casual Labourers With Temporary Status Entitled to Pension Even Without Formal Regularisation, Supreme Court Holds
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that Department of Posts casual labourers who completed ten years under temporary status are entitled to superannuation pension regardless of formal regularisation, reversing the Patna High Court.
The Supreme Court has held that a casual labourer in the Department of Posts who was conferred temporary status and subsequently completed the minimum qualifying period of ten years of service with the benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees is entitled to superannuation pension and other retiral benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, even in the absence of a formal order of regularisation. The judgment, delivered on 1 June 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, set aside three orders of the Patna High Court that had reversed the Central Administrative Tribunal’s directions in favour of the appellants. The Court directed the Union of India to compute and release pensionary benefits within three months, with interest at 6% per annum in case of default.
How the Dispute Reached the Court
The three appellants — or their legal representatives — were casual labourers (Night Guards) in the Department of Posts who had served for several decades. Bhikhani Devi is the widow of Late Suraj Sah, who was appointed as a paid casual labourer at the Rajnagar Post Office in Madhubani District, Bihar, on 12 February 1972. Bahuru Sahu was appointed on 10 October 1971, and Pitamber Jha on 20 June 1981. All three rendered long, continuous, and uninterrupted service until superannuation.
Following directions of the Supreme Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) and Others v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., the Department of Posts formulated the “Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991” on 12 April 1991. Under this Scheme, Late Suraj Sah, Bahuru Sahu, and Pitamber Jha were conferred temporary status with effect from 29 November 1989 by a departmental memo dated 20 November 1992. A further memo dated 3 May 2000 directed that Late Suraj Sah and Bahuru Sahu be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees.
None of the three was ever formally regularised. Late Suraj Sah retired on 31 December 2008 and passed away on 10 April 2015. Bahuru Sahu retired on 30 April 2008, and Pitamber Jha on 31 October 2015. When the appellants sought pensionary benefits, the Respondents rejected their claims on the ground that formal regularisation as Group ‘D’ employees was a mandatory prerequisite for pension entitlement.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, allowed the original applications filed by the appellants in orders dated 27 March 2018, 30 July 2018, and 3 August 2018, directing the Respondents to consider their claims. The Union of India challenged those orders before the Patna High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that the claims were liable to be rejected on grounds of delay and laches, and that in the absence of formal regularisation the appellants were not entitled to pensionary benefits. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions.
The Core Question
The Court framed the issue as: whether a temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation.
The appellants argued that pension constitutes a continuing cause of action and cannot be denied on grounds of delay, relying on M.L. Patil (Dead) through LRs v. State of Goa and Another, reported at (2023) 1 SCC 660. On merits, they contended that the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 provide that a temporary government servant who retires on superannuation after rendering not less than ten years of service shall be entitled to superannuation pension, gratuity, and family pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. They also relied on an Office Memorandum dated 14 April 1987 clarifying that even temporary government servants rendering the requisite service are to be brought within pensionary benefits, with the requirement of holding a substantive pensionable post dispensed with.
The Union of India, through the learned Additional Solicitor General, contended that the Scheme exclusively governed the appellants’ service conditions and that Clause 6 of the Scheme expressly made counting of 50% of service under temporary status towards retirement benefits conditional upon formal regularisation as a Group ‘D’ employee. The ASG further argued that the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 did not apply to persons employed in extra-temporary establishments or paid out of contingencies, and that the appellants fell outside the scope of those Rules.
Reading the Scheme as a Beneficial Framework
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the 1991 Scheme and the circular dated 30 November 1992. It found that the Scheme 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.
On Clause 8 of the Scheme, which provides that after three years of continuous service under temporary status casual labourers shall be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees for purposes of GPF contribution and certain advances, the Court held that the phrase “treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees” assumed considerable significance and contemplated extension of benefits admissible to that category.
The Court addressed the Union’s reliance on Clause 6, which states that 50% of service under temporary status would be counted for retirement benefits “after regularisation as a regular Group D official.” The Court held that Clause 6 does not create the pensionary entitlement itself; it provides an additional benefit by directing that half the service under temporary status be counted towards retirement benefits upon regularisation. The pensionary entitlement of temporary status employees who completed the prescribed period of service flows independently from the Scheme and the circular dated 30 November 1992. The expression “after regularisation” in Clause 6 cannot be construed narrowly so as to defeat the beneficial object of the Scheme.
On the circular dated 30 November 1992, the Court found that the enumeration of benefits — leave, holidays, GPF, medical facilities, LTC, bonus, and others — was introduced with the words “such as,” indicating that the list was illustrative and neither restrictive nor exhaustive. The Court held that the circular, being a beneficial instrument, cannot be read restrictively; the correct approach is to extend all benefits available to temporary Group ‘D’ employees to temporary status casual labourers, including pensionary benefits.
The Court also distinguished four categories of employees: casual labourers, temporary status casual labourers, temporary Government employees, and regular Government employees. It held that while conferment of temporary status does not ipso facto transform a casual labourer into a temporary Government servant, the Scheme consciously extends to such employees, after three years of continuous service under temporary status, the benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees. The distinction that remains is one of nomenclature, formal status, and mode of regularisation — not of the nature of extended benefits.
The Court drew on a line of its earlier decisions. In Jagrit Mazdoor Union, the Court had held that upon completion of three years of continuous service under temporary status, casual labourers are to be treated at par with Group ‘D’ employees and entitled to benefits admissible to regular employees. In Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others, reported at (2024) 9 SCC 327, the Court recognised that where employees have rendered continuous service performing duties indistinguishable from those of regular employees, the distinction between temporary and permanent employment becomes substantively illusory. In Jaggo v. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, the Court reiterated that employees who have rendered continuous and essential service over long periods cannot be denied benefits available to regular employees merely on account of nomenclature. In Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India and Others, (1996) 7 SCC 113, the 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.
The Court also referred to State of Jharkhand and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another, (2013) 12 SCC 210, for the proposition that pension is not a bounty but a hard-earned benefit in the nature of “property” within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Applying the Law to the Three Appellants
The Court examined whether the appellants satisfied the eligibility criteria under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, which requires a minimum of ten years of qualifying service.
Late Suraj Sah’s service fell into three phases: as a casual labourer from 1972 to 29 November 1989; as a temporary status casual labourer from 29 November 1989 to 30 November 1992; and as a temporary status casual labourer entitled to benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees from 30 November 1992 until superannuation on 31 December 2008. The period from 30 November 1992 to 31 December 2008 exceeded ten years, satisfying the minimum qualifying service requirement. The Court held he was entitled to superannuation pension and other retirement benefits under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Bahuru Sahu and Pitamber Jha were similarly conferred temporary status with effect from 29 November 1989 and continued until their superannuation on 30 April 2008 and 31 October 2015 respectively. The period of service with benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees in each case exceeded the minimum qualifying period of ten years, entitling them to all retiral benefits under the Rules.
Delay and Laches
The High Court had also rejected the claims on grounds of delay and laches. The Supreme Court held that pensionary benefits constitute a continuing cause of action and a claim for pension cannot be defeated solely on the ground of delay. However, the Court balanced this against settled principles governing limitation. Since nothing on record indicated that the appellants had raised any claim for pensionary benefits prior to filing their original applications before the Tribunal, the Court directed that arrears, 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.
Order
The Supreme Court set aside the three impugned judgments of the Patna High Court dated 14 October 2019 in Civil W.P. Case Nos. 15420, 11564, and 13980 of 2019, holding that they proceeded on an erroneous interpretation of the Scheme and the circular dated 30 November 1992.
The Respondents were directed to compute and release the pensionary and consequential retiral benefits payable to the appellants in accordance with law within three months from the date of the judgment. In case of default, interest at 6% per annum from the date of accrual till disbursement shall be payable to the appellants.
Bhikhani Devi, as widow and legal representative of Late Suraj Sah, is entitled to pensionary benefits accrued to Late Suraj Sah together with admissible family pension, subject to the arrears limitation. Bahuru Sahu is entitled to pensionary and consequential retiral benefits, with arrears confined to three years and two months preceding the date of filing of his original application. Pitamber Jha, who superannuated on 31 October 2015, is entitled to pensionary and consequential retiral benefits from the date of his retirement. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.