CCS Rules | Temporary Status Casual Labourer Entitled To Pension Even Without Formal Regularisation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 1) delivered a significant ruling in favour of long-serving casual workers, holding that employees who have performed work of a permanent and continuous nature for the government over extended periods are entitled to pensionary benefits even in the absence of formal regularisation. The Court held that such casual workers are entitled to benefits equivalent to temporary government servants under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and cannot be denied pension merely because their services were never formally regularised.

The Court held that though the casual workers do not attain the 'status' of a temporary government servant upon performing similar nature of works for extended years, they would be entitled to the same service benefits, received by the temporary government employee, by virtue of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

“A temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence of regularisation.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The case arose from claims made by one Bhikhani Devi, widow of late Suraj Sah, along with Bahuru Sahu and Pitamber Jha, who had worked as casual labourers and night guards in the Department of Posts for several decades. Although they were granted temporary status under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991, their requests for pension were rejected on the ground that they had never been formally regularised as Group-D employees.

Setting aside the Patna High Court's judgments, the judgment authored by Justice Karol rejected the Union government's stand, holding that upon completion of the qualifying period of service under the scheme, the Appellants-employees are entitled to pensionary benefits irrespective of whether a formal order of regularisation had been issued.

The Court noted that since the Appellants had rendered uninterrupted service for decades, after the grant of temporary status and extension of Group-D benefits, the nature of their employment substantially changed and could not continue to be viewed through the narrow lens of their original casual engagement.

“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.”, the court observed.

In essence, the Court held that when the Appellants became eligible to claim the same service benefits received by the Government's Group-D employees, then it would be unjustified to deny the same to the Appellants.

For the Appellants, the Court found them to become entitled to benefits under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Thereby making them entitled to the grant of superannuation pension and other retirement benefits as admissible under the above rules.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the Supreme Court restored the CAT's orders and directed the Union Government to compute and release pensionary and consequential retiral benefits within three months.

Headnote

Service Law – Department of Posts – Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 – Circular dated 30.11.1992 – Rule 10(1-B) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 – Entitlement of temporary status casual labourers to pensionary benefits in the absence of formal regularisation – Held - A casual labourer, upon conferment of "temporary status" and subsequent completion of three years of continuous service in that capacity, is treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees - This parity functions as a parity in substantive service benefits (including leave, increments, GPF, and pensionary benefits) rather than an identity of formal service status - The expression "after regularisation" in Clause 6 of the 1991 Scheme does not restrict or act as a mandatory prerequisite for the core entitlement to a pension; rather, it provides an additional benefit of counting 50% of the past temporary status service towards retirement benefits once a formal order of regularisation is passed - The foundational right to a pension for such employees flows independently from the operational framework of the Scheme, the Departmental Circular dated 30.11.1992, and Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - If a temporary status casual labourer completes the minimum qualifying service of 10 years after attaining parity with temporary Group 'D' employees, they are entitled to superannuation pension, retirement gratuity, and family pension upon death, even in the absolute absence of a formal order of regularisation. [Paras 47-76]

Service Jurisprudence – State as a Model Employer – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 38, 39, and 43 – Equity and Social Justice – Held that long-serving employees who have rendered continuous, uninterrupted service spanning decades and have been functionally assimilated into the regular framework cannot be retained in a precarious status to deny them social security - The distinction between temporary and permanent employment becomes substantively illusory when the nature of duties performed is identical to regular employees - The State, as a model employer, is bound by constitutional mandates to ensure fair conditions of work and economic justice. [Paras 35-40]

Constitutional Law – Right to Pension – Nature of Pension – Plea of Financial Burden – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 300A – Held that Pension is not a bounty, grace, or a matter of financial convenience dependent on the employer - It is a deferred wage and a hard-earned benefit amassed by virtue of long and continuous service, constituting "property" within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution - A constitutional right cannot be rendered illusory or defeated on account of administrative inaction or the plea of financial burden. [Paras 41-74]

Service Jurisprudence – Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – Arrears Limitation – Held - Pensionary benefits constitute a recurring and continuing cause of action - A substantive claim for pension cannot be rejected or defeated solely on the ground of delay and laches - the grant of financial arrears must be balanced with settled principles of limitation; where the claim was not raised prior to approaching the court, arrears shall remain restricted to a period of three years and two months preceding the filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal. [Relied on Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) and Others v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Another, 1990 Supp SCC 113; Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India and Others, (1996) 7 SCC 113; M.L. Patil (Dead) through LRs v. State of Goa and Another, (2023) 1 SCC 660; Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2024) 9 SCC 327; Jaggo v. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Paras 79-83]

Cause Title: BHIKHANI DEVI AND ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 582

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Kumar Murlidhar, AOR Mr. Atul Verma, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Shariq Ahmed,Adv. Mr. Tariq Ahmed, Adv. M/S. Ahmadi Law Offices, AOR Mr. Bijender Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Mohan Prasad Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kr.singh, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Mohan Prasad Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sushil Raaja, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR