A temporary status casual labourer who has completed the requisite qualifying service is entitled to pensionary benefits even without formal regularisation; pension cannot be denied merely because the employee was never regularised.

FACTS

The appellants were either former casual labourers (Night Guards) in the Department of Posts or legal representatives of such employees. They were initially appointed as casual labourers, later granted temporary status under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991, and continued in service for several decades until superannuation. Although they were granted temporary status and, after three years, treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees, they were never formally regularised. Their claims for pension and family pension were rejected by the Department on the ground that regularisation was a prerequisite for pensionary benefits. The Tribunal granted relief, but the High Court reversed those orders. The appellants approached the Supreme Court. 

Issues Framed

Whether a temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a formal order of regularisation, is entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court examined the constitutional and statutory framework governing pension and observed that pension is “not a bounty but a vested and enforceable constitutional right” and constitutes property protected under Art.300A Const. of India (Paras 39–42). 

(b) Relying upon Jagrit Mazdoor Union, Vinod Kumar, Jaggo, and Yashwant Hari Katakkar, the Court reiterated that employees who render long and continuous service cannot be denied substantive service benefits merely because of their nomenclature or absence of formal regularisation (Paras 34–38). 

(c) Analysing the 1991 Scheme, the Court held that it was a beneficial measure intended to progressively integrate casual labourers into the regular service framework. Clauses 6, 8, 12, 13 and 17 demonstrated a clear legislative intent to extend benefits associated with Group ‘D’ employees and facilitate eventual regularisation (Paras 44–52). 

(d) Interpreting the departmental circular dated 30.11.1992, the Court emphasised that temporary status employees who completed three years’ service were to be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees. The phrase “benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees such as” was held to be illustrative and not exhaustive. Therefore, pensionary benefits were included within those benefits (Paras 53–55). 

(e) The Court rejected the Union’s argument that pension became payable only after regularisation. It held that the words “after regularisation” in Clause 6 merely conferred an additional benefit of counting 50% temporary-status service after regularisation and did not extinguish the independent entitlement to pension flowing from the Scheme and the 1992 circular (Paras 56–57). 

(f) Referring to Rule 10(1-B) CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the Court held that temporary Government servants with ten years’ qualifying service are entitled to pension and family pension. Since temporary status employees were granted parity in benefits with temporary Group ‘D’ employees, such pensionary entitlement necessarily extended to them as well (Paras 70–75). 

Held

The appeals were allowed. The judgments of the High Court were set aside. The Court held that temporary status casual labourers who satisfy the qualifying service requirement are entitled to pensionary and consequential retiral benefits even in the absence of formal regularisation. The respondents were directed to compute and release the benefits within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable. 

Ratio

A temporary status casual labourer who, after completion of three years of temporary-status service, becomes entitled to benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, is entitled to pensionary benefits under the applicable service framework upon fulfilling the qualifying service requirement, and such entitlement is not dependent upon formal regularisation. 

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 612
Decided on: 1 June 2026
Case Title: Bhikhani Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Augustine George Masih, J.