Temporary Status Casual Labourers Entitled to Pension Even Without Formal Regularisation: Supreme Court
Case Name: Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 612
Date of Judgment/Order: 01 June 2026
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J. and Augustine George Masih, J.
Held: The Supreme Court held that temporary status casual labourers of the Department of Posts, who have completed three years of continuous service after conferment of temporary status and thereafter rendered the qualifying period of service, are entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence of a formal order of regularisation. The Court held that the 1991 Casual Labourers Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992 must be interpreted beneficially, and once such employees are treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees for service benefits, pensionary benefits available under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 cannot be selectively denied.
Summary: The appellants were former casual labourers or legal representatives of employees who had served for several decades as Night Guards in the Department of Posts. They were conferred temporary status under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 with effect from 29.11.1989 and, upon completion of three years, were treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees under the departmental circular dated 30.11.1992. Despite long and uninterrupted service until superannuation, their claims for pension and family pension were rejected on the ground that they had never been formally regularised. The Tribunal granted relief, but the Patna High Court set aside those orders on the grounds of delay and absence of regularisation. Reversing the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the Scheme was a beneficial and progressive framework intended to assimilate temporary status casual labourers into the regular service structure, and that pension, being a constitutional and enforceable right in the nature of property, cannot be denied merely by relying on nomenclature or administrative inaction.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the Patna High Court, and restored the entitlement of the appellants to pensionary and consequential retiral benefits. Bhikhani Devi, as the widow and legal representative of Late Suraj Sah, was held entitled to the pensionary benefits accrued to him, if any, along with admissible family pension, while Bahuru Sahu and Pitamber Jha were held entitled to pensionary and retiral benefits in accordance with law. The Court limited arrears, wherever applicable, to three years and two months preceding the filing of the respective Original Applications before the Tribunal, and directed the Union of India to compute and release the benefits within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable. There was no order as to costs, and all pending applications were disposed of.