The Supreme Court has held that temporary status casual labourers in the Department of Posts are entitled to pensionary benefits upon superannuation even if they were never formally regularised as Group ‘D’ employees.
The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih allowed appeals filed by former postal employees and their legal representatives, setting aside judgments of the Patna High Court that had denied pension claims.
The bench ruled that administrative failure to regularise employees cannot be used to deprive them of pensionary benefits after they have rendered decades of continuous service.
Table of Contents
Background of the Dispute
The appellants were employees engaged as casual labourers (Night Guards) in various post offices in Bihar. They had served the Department of Posts continuously for several decades. Following the introduction of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991, they were granted temporary status with retrospective effect from November 29, 1989.
After completing three years in temporary status, they were treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees and were extended benefits such as leave, provident fund facilities and other service-related entitlements. However, despite their long service, they were never formally regularised before retirement. When they sought pension and retirement benefits, the Department rejected their claims on the ground that formal regularisation was a prerequisite for pension entitlement.
The Central Administrative Tribunal had granted relief to the employees, but the Patna High Court subsequently reversed those orders, prompting the appeals before the Supreme Court.
Core Legal Question
The principal issue before the Court was: “Whether temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation or not?”
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the 1991 Scheme and the Department of Posts’ circular dated November 30, 1992. It observed that the scheme was designed as a beneficial framework intended to progressively integrate casual labourers into the regular service structure and extend to them benefits comparable to those enjoyed by Group ‘D’ employees.
The Bench emphasized that after completing three years of service with temporary status, casual labourers were expressly required to be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees and made eligible for benefits admissible to that category. According to the Court, pensionary benefits formed part of those benefits and could not be selectively excluded.
Rejecting the government’s contention that pension could only be granted after formal regularisation, the Court held that Clause 6 of the Scheme merely provided an additional benefit by allowing 50% of temporary-status service to be counted after regularisation. It did not create pension entitlement itself, nor could it be interpreted to extinguish pension rights in the absence of regularisation.
Pension Is a Constitutional Right
The judgment strongly reiterated the settled principle that pension is not a matter of grace but a vested right earned through long service.
The Court relied upon earlier decisions holding that pension constitutes “property” protected under Article 300A of the Constitution. It observed that an employee’s constitutional entitlement cannot be defeated by administrative inaction, especially where the employer failed to regularise workers despite decades of service.
The Bench further stressed that the State, as a model employer, cannot continue to extract services of a permanent nature while denying corresponding social security benefits. Denial of pension to employees who had spent their entire working lives in service of the Department would offend principles of fairness, equality and social justice embedded in the Constitution.
Distinction Between Status and Benefits
An important aspect of the ruling is the Court’s distinction between an employee’s formal status and the benefits attached to that status.
While acknowledging that a temporary status casual labourer does not automatically become a temporary government servant, the Court held that once the scheme grants such workers parity in service benefits with temporary Group ‘D’ employees, the government cannot rely on nomenclature alone to deny pensionary benefits that flow from that parity. The distinction may survive for purposes of designation or mode of appointment, but not for denying benefits expressly contemplated under the scheme.
Court’s Final Ruling
Answering the central question, the Supreme Court unequivocally held: “A temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence of regularisation.”
The Court found that all three employees had completed far more than the minimum ten years of qualifying service required under Rule 10(1-B) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, making them eligible for pension and other retirement benefits.
Relief Granted
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court restored the benefits granted by the Tribunal and directed the authorities to compute and release pensionary and consequential retiral benefits within three months. The widow of one deceased employee was held entitled to family pension and other accrued benefits.
While recognizing pension claims as a continuing cause of action, the Court limited arrears to three years and two months preceding the filing of the original applications before the Tribunal.
The Bench further directed that if payment is not made within the stipulated period of three months, the beneficiaries would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accrual until actual disbursement.
Case Details
Case Title: Bhikhani Devi And Etc. Versus UOI
Citation: JURISHOUR-1505-SC-2026
Case No.: SLP (C) NOS.28802-28804 OF 2019
Date: 01/06/2026
