# Bhikhani Devi and Etc v. Union of India and Others

- **Citation:** 2026 INSC 612
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2026-06-01
- **Bench:** Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bhikhani-devi-and-etc-v-union-of-india-and-others-39274
- **Pages:** 33

## Headnote

Whether temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a
formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to pensionary
benefits on superannuation or not.
Headnotes†
CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - r.10(1-B) - CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 - A temporary status casual labourer, if
entitled to pensionary benefits in absence of regularization -
Appellants are either former employees or legal representatives
of employees who had rendered long, continuous, and
uninterrupted service under the Department of Posts as
casual labourers (Night Guards) spanning several decades
till superannuation - They were conferred "temporary status"
under the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regularisation) Scheme, 1991" (Scheme) - Subsequently,
Circular dtd.30.11.1992 provided that, the casual labourers
who were conferred with temporary status under the Scheme
and had rendered three years of continuous service with such
temporary status be treated at par with 'temporary Group 'D'
employees' and were held entitled to the benefits admissible
to such employees - Notwithstanding the conferment of
temporary status and the extension of benefits akin to Group
'D' employees, the Appellants or their predecessors-in-interest
were never formally regularised in service - Appellants sought
grant of pensionary benefits/family pension requesting that
the service rendered under temporary status be counted for
the purpose of pensionary benefits - Claim rejected on the
ground that the employees were not 'formally regularised' as
Group 'D' employees - Appellants sought pensionary benefits/
family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension)
* Author
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
143
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
Rules, 1972 - Allowed by Tribunal - Order set aside by High
Court - Interference with:
Held: A temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to
pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence
of regularization - The submission advanced on behalf of the
Respondents is that under the Scheme the employees continue
merely as temporary status casual labourers and are distinct
from the temporary Government servants, and so would be the
pensionary framework applicable - At first blush, this contention
appears to be correct to an extent however, on due consideration
and deliberation of the Scheme and its various clauses as a
whole, the submission is misplaced - 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 - When the statutory framework including CCS
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is read in conjunction with the
Scheme and the circular dtd.30.11.1992, the inescapable conclusion
which emerges is that a casual labour, on being conferred the
temporary status, upon completion of three years of continuous
service as temporary status c

## Text

_Characters 0–39,947 of 71,649. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39947 for what follows._

[2026] 7 S.C.R. 142 : 2026 INSC 612
Bhikhani Devi and Etc.
v.
Union of India and Others
(Civil Appeal No(s). 8354-8356 of 2026)
01 June 2026
[Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a
formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to pensionary
benefits on superannuation or not.
Headnotes†
CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - r.10(1-B) - CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 - A temporary status casual labourer, if
entitled to pensionary benefits in absence of regularization -
Appellants are either former employees or legal representatives
of employees who had rendered long, continuous, and
uninterrupted service under the Department of Posts as
casual labourers (Night Guards) spanning several decades
till superannuation - They were conferred "temporary status"
under the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regularisation) Scheme, 1991" (Scheme) - Subsequently,
Circular dtd.30.11.1992 provided that, the casual labourers
who were conferred with temporary status under the Scheme
and had rendered three years of continuous service with such
temporary status be treated at par with 'temporary Group 'D'
employees' and were held entitled to the benefits admissible
to such employees - Notwithstanding the conferment of
temporary status and the extension of benefits akin to Group
'D' employees, the Appellants or their predecessors-in-interest
were never formally regularised in service - Appellants sought
grant of pensionary benefits/family pension requesting that
the service rendered under temporary status be counted for
the purpose of pensionary benefits - Claim rejected on the
ground that the employees were not 'formally regularised' as
Group 'D' employees - Appellants sought pensionary benefits/
family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension)
* Author
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
143
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
Rules, 1972 - Allowed by Tribunal - Order set aside by High
Court - Interference with:
Held: A temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to
pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence
of regularization - The submission advanced on behalf of the
Respondents is that under the Scheme the employees continue
merely as temporary status casual labourers and are distinct
from the temporary Government servants, and so would be the
pensionary framework applicable - At first blush, this contention
appears to be correct to an extent however, on due consideration
and deliberation of the Scheme and its various clauses as a
whole, the submission is misplaced - 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 - When the statutory framework including CCS
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is read in conjunction with the
Scheme and the circular dtd.30.11.1992, the inescapable conclusion
which emerges is that a casual labour, on being conferred the
temporary status, upon completion of three years of continuous
service as temporary status casual labourer becomes entitled
to benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees, which
necessarily includes pensionary benefits available u/r.10(1-B) of
the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 subject to fulfilling the
eligibility criteria provided therein - This right is not dependent on
144
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
regularization - Impugned judgments proceeded on an erroneous
interpretation of the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992,
set aside - Appellants entitled to pensionary and consequential
retiral benefits in accordance with law - Constitution of India -
Arts.14, 300A. [Paras 66, 67, 75, 76, 84]
Constitution of India - Art.300A - Pension is not a bounty but
a vested and enforceable constitutional right:
Held: Pension is a hard-earned benefit amassed by an employee
by virtue of long and continuous service and is in the nature of
"property" within the meaning of Art.300A of the Constitution of
India - Once pension is recognised as a constitutional right in the
nature of property, it cannot be taken away except by authority of
law - A statutory right cannot be rendered illusory on account of
inaction of the employer, and such inaction cannot defeat or deny
a constitutional right. [Paras 41, 42]
Service Law - In furtherance of the "Casual Labourers (Grant
of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991"
(Scheme), circular dtd.30.11.1992 provided that the casual
labourers conferred with temporary status as per the Scheme
be treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees with
effect from the date of completion of three years of service
in the temporary status - The benefits listed in the circular
dtd. 30.11.1992 included leave, holidays, GPF, medical
facilities, LTC, bonus, and other service benefits admissible
to Temporary Group 'D' employees - Plea of the Respondents
that temporary status casual labourers are extended only
the benefits that are specified in the Scheme and Circular
dtd.30.11.1992 and are not entitled for pensionary benefits:
Held: Said submission is misconceived - The enumeration of
benefits listed in the circular dtd.30.11.1992, includes leave,
holidays, GPF, medical facilities, LTC, bonus, and other service
benefits admissible to Temporary Group 'D' employees, clearly
demonstrates that temporary status employees are to be functionally
assimilated into the service framework of Temporary Group 'D'
employees - The expression "benefits admissible to temporary
Group 'D' employees such as", made use of in the circular is
of considerable importance - The utilisation of the words "such
as" clearly indicates that the benefits enumerated therein are
illustrative and neither restrictive nor exhaustive - The circular,
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
145
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
being a beneficial legislation, cannot be read and understood in
a restrictive manner rather the correct approach of interpretation
would be to analyse it in the letter and spirit of the legislative and
administrative intent i.e. to extend all benefits as are available
to temporary Group 'D' employees, to temporary status casual
labourers including pensionary benefits. [Paras 54, 55]
CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - r.10(1-B) - CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 - Plea of the Respondents that the
Appellants were paid out of contingencies and therefore stood
excluded from the purview of the CCS (Temporary Service)
Rules, 1965:
Held: Said contention cannot be accepted in the particular facts of
the present case - Such exclusion may have relevance at the stage
of initial engagement as casual labourers - However, the service
conditions of the Appellants underwent a substantial transformation
upon extension of benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D'
employees - The continued reliance by the Respondents upon the
original mode of engagement, while simultaneously extending pay
parity, increments, GPF facilities, leave benefits and other service
entitlements akin to temporary Group 'D' employees, would amount to
selectively accepting one part of the Scheme while disregarding the
other - Such an approach would defeat the very object underlying
the Scheme and the circular dtd.30.11.1992 - Once parity in service
benefits with temporary Group 'D' employees is consciously extended
under the Scheme, pensionary benefits flowing u/r.10(1-B) of the
Rules of 1965 cannot be selectively denied by ignoring or overlooking
the statutory right - The argument founded upon financial burden
is equally untenable - Pension is not a matter of grace dependent
upon the financial convenience of the employer, but a deferred wage
earned through long years of service - Pension is recognised as a
constitutional right in the nature of property protected u/Art.300A of
the Constitution of India and, therefore, it cannot be denied on the
plea of financial burden. [Para 73]
Service Law - Constitution of India - Arts.14; 38, 39, 43 -
State, a model employer - Long-serving employees,
casual or temporary, if conferred a recognised status and
extended benefits akin to regular employees, cannot be
denied corresponding benefits including social security and
pensionary benefits:
146
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: Long-serving employees, whether casual or temporary,
particularly those who have been conferred a recognised status
and extended benefits akin to regular employees, cannot be denied
corresponding benefits including social security and pensionary
benefits - The emphasis must be on ensuring that the State does
not retain such employees in a precarious condition while extracting
services identical to those performed by regular employees - This
approach is firmly rooted in the constitutional mandate of equality
enshrined u/Art.14 - Any classification, resulting in denial of any
benefits to a class of employees who are otherwise similarly situated
in terms of duties and responsibilities would fall foul of constitutional
ethos - Further, the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly
Arts.38, 39 and 43, cast a positive obligation upon the State to
ensure social and economic justice, fair conditions of work, and a
decent standard of life for labourers - Pension, in this context, is
not a gratuitous benefit but a facet of social welfare and economic
justice - State as a model employer, read in conjunction with the
aforesaid constitutional mandate, reinforces the obligation upon
the State to extend fair and equitable treatment to employees who
have rendered long and continuous service and the State cannot
extract services of a permanent nature while denying corresponding
benefits. [Paras 38-40]
Service Law - Pensionary benefits - Delay and laches:
Held: Pensionary benefits constitute a continuing cause of action,
and a claim for pension cannot be defeated solely on the ground
of delay - At the same time, the claim for arrears is required to
be balanced with settled principles governing limitation - In the
present case, nothing has been brought on record to indicate that
the Appellants had raised any claim for pensionary benefits prior to
filing of the respective Original Applications before the Tribunal -
In such circumstances, while the entitlement of the Appellants to
pensionary and consequential retiral benefits stands established,
the arrears thereof, 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,
consistent with settled principles governing service jurisprudence.
[Para 81]
Service Law - Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status
and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991" - Different categories
of employees engaged within the service framework in the
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
147
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
Department of Posts viz., Casual labourers; Temporary
status casual labourers; Temporary Government employees;
and Regular Government employees - Distinction between,
stated - CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. [Paras 59-65]
Service Law - Parity in service benefits vis-à-vis identity of
service status:
Held: The Scheme in question nowhere provides that upon
completion of three years' service under temporary status, the
employee becomes a temporary Government servant - What it
specifically provides is that such employee shall be treated at par
with temporary Group 'D' employees for purposes of extension of
admissible benefits - The parity contemplated under the Scheme
is thus parity in service benefits and not identity of service status -
Once the Scheme and the circular dtd.30.11.1992 consciously
extend benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees,
the Respondents cannot rely solely upon the nomenclature of
'temporary status casual labourer' to deny those very benefits -
The entire framework of the Scheme proceeds upon extension of
substantive service benefits despite continuance of the original
nomenclature as temporary status casual labourer. [Para 68]
Service Law - Plea of the Respondents that Clause 6 of
the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regularisation) Scheme, 1991" (Scheme) contemplates
counting of 50% service rendered under temporary status
towards retirement benefits only after formal regularisation
as Group 'D' employee and, therefore, in the absence of
regularisation, no pensionary benefits can be granted:
Held: Said submission cannot be accepted - Clause 6 cannot
be read in isolation divorced from the principles and purpose
underlying the Scheme and the circular dtd.30.11.1992 - The
judgment of this Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union, which forms
the basis of the Scheme itself, categorically directed that upon
completion of three years of continuous service under temporary
status, casual labourers 'would thereby be entitled to benefits as
are admissible to Group 'D' employees on regular basis' - The
circular dtd.30.11.1992 further clarifies that such employees
would be entitled to counting of service for pension and terminal
benefits as admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees - The
expression "after regularisation" occurring in Clause 6 cannot be
148
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
construed in a narrow or restrictive manner so as to defeat the
beneficial object underlying the Scheme and must be construed in
its proper context - Clause 6 has to be interpreted harmoniously
and would construe to mean that in cases where formal orders
of regularisation are passed, 50% of the service rendered under
temporary status would be liable to be counted towards retirement
and pensionary benefits as additional benefit apart from the
benefits as available under the rules which become applicable to
a regular government employee - Consequently, while Clause 6
may operate to confer an additional advantage in cases where
regularisation takes place, the absence of formal regularisation
cannot be construed as extinguishing or defeating the underlying
entitlement to pensionary benefits. [Paras 56, 57]
Case Law Cited
Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) and Others v. Mahanagar Telephone
Nigam Ltd. and Another (1990) Supp. SCC 113; Vinod Kumar and
Others v. Union of India and Others [2024] 1 SCR 1230 : (2024)
9 SCC 327; Jaggo v. Union of India and Others [2024] 12 SCR
1235 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Yashwant Hari Katakkar v.
Union of India and Others (1996) 7 SCC 113; State of Jharkhand
and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another [2013] 8
SCR 177 : (2013) 12 SCC 210 - relied on.
M.L. Patil (Dead) through Lrs. v. State of Goa and Another [2022]
3 SCR 362 : (2023) 1 SCC 660; Indian Council of Agricultural
Research and Another v. Santosh (2006) 11 SCC 157 - referred to.
List of Acts
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Central Civil Services
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
List of Keywords
Casual labourers; Temporary Government servant; Temporary
Government employees; Temporary status casual labourer;
"Temporary status"; Absence of a formal order of regularization;
Absence of regularization; Pensionary benefits; Temporary
status casual labourer entitled to pensionary benefits; Casual
and temporary employees; Rights of casual labourers; Rights of
temporary employees; Casual labourers (Night Guards); Department
of Posts; Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
149
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
Regularisation) Scheme, 1991; Temporary Group 'D' employees;
Casual temporary status employee; State a model employer; Article
300A of the Constitution of India; Pension a constitutional right in
the nature of property; Pension not a bounty; Pension a vested
and enforceable constitutional right; Claim for pension cannot be
defeated on the ground of delay; Long-serving employees; Long
years of service; Long, continuous, and uninterrupted service; Long,
continuous service as casual labourers (Night Guards); Service
spanning several decades; Parity in service benefits; Identity of
service status; Claim for pension a continuing cause of action;
Nomenclature of 'temporary status casual labourer'; Regular
Government employees.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
8354-8356 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in CWJC Nos. 15420, 11564, 13980 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Amrish Kumar, Sudarshan Lamba.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Bijender Chahar, A.S.G., Sudarshan Lamba, Kumar Murlidhar,
Atul Verma, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Sunil Kumar Verma, Shariq
Ahmed, Tariq Ahmed, M/s Ahmadi Law Offices, Mohan Prasad
Gupta, Rohit Khare, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Ms. Seema Bengani, Rajesh
Kr. Singh, Jagdish Chandra, Mohan Prasad Gupta, Sushil Raaja,
Amrish Kumar.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Augustine George Masih, J.
1.
Leave Granted.
2.
These Civil Appeals challenge the judgments and final orders dated
14.10.2019 ("Impugned Judgments) passed by the High Court of
150
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judicature at Patna ("High Court") in Civil W.P. Case No.15420 of
2019, Civil W.P. Case No.11564 of 2019 and Civil W.P. Case No.13980
of 2019, whereby the writ petitions preferred by the Respondent-Union
of India were allowed, resulting in the setting aside of the Orders of
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna ("Tribunal") dated 27.03.2018,
30.07.2018 and 03.08.2018 passed in Original Applications, filed by
the Appellants herein, granting relief to them.
3.
The Appellants before this Court are either former employees or legal
representatives of employees who had rendered long years of service
under the Department of Posts as casual labourers (Night Guards).
4.
Appellant, Bhikhani Devi, is the widow of Late Suraj Sah, who was
initially appointed as a paid casual labourer (Night Guard) at the
Rajnagar Post Office in Madhubani District, Bihar, on 12.02.1972.
Appellant, Bahuru Sahu, was appointed on 10.10.1971 and Appellant,
Pitamber Jha, was similarly appointed as a casual labourer (Night
Guard) on 20.06.1981.
5.
It is not in dispute that all three employees rendered long, continuous,
and uninterrupted service spanning several decades in the said
capacity and continued to discharge duties as a casual labourer till
superannuation.
6.
On 12.04.1991, pursuant to directions of this Court in Jagrit Mazdoor
Union (Regd.) and Others v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
and Another1, the Department of Posts formulated the "Casual
Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme,
1991" ("Scheme"), with the avowed objective of providing improved
service conditions and a measure of social security to casual
labourers. The said scheme was communicated to all concerned
Departments on 15.05.1991.
7.
In furtherance of the said Scheme, Late Suraj Sah, along with Bahuru
Sahu and Pitamber Jha, were conferred "temporary status" vide
departmental memo dated 20.11.1992, with effect from 29.11.1989.
The conferment of such status marked a significant shift in the service
conditions, entitling them to certain benefits and bringing them within
the structured service framework of the Department.
1
(1990) Supp. SCC 113
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
151
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
8.
Subsequently, by a circular/letter dated 30.11.1992, the Department of
Posts conveyed decision being taken that the casual labourers who
had been conferred with temporary status under the Scheme and
have rendered three years of continuous service with such temporary
status would be treated at par with 'temporary Group 'D' employees'
and would be entitled to the benefits admissible to such employees,
including leave, holidays and other service-related entitlements.
9.
In terms of the said circular, upon completion of the requisite period
of service, a further memo dated 03.05.2000 was issued directing
that Late Suraj Sah, along with Appellant - Bahuru Sahu, be treated
at par with "temporary Group 'D' employees", thereby entitling them
to the benefits admissible to that category, including consideration
of service for the purpose of pension and other terminal benefits
upon regularisation.
10. Notwithstanding the conferment of temporary status and the
extension of benefits akin to Group 'D' employees, the Appellants
or their predecessors-in-interest were never formally regularised in
service. It is the case of the Appellants that such non-regularisation
was not attributable to any lapse on their part or intimation about
non-eligibility but was a consequence of administrative inaction on
the part of the Respondents.
11. Late Suraj Sah continued in service until attaining the age of
superannuation and retired on 31.12.2008. Appellant, Bahuru Sahu,
retired earlier on 30.04.2008, while Appellant, Pitamber Jha, retired
on 31.10.2015. Following his retirement, Late Suraj Sah was issued a
communication dated 06.04.2010 informing him of payment under the
Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS).
12. Late Suraj Sah subsequently passed away on 10.04.2015, leaving
behind his widow, Appellant, Bhikhani Devi and minor children.
Thereafter, Appellant, Bhikhani Devi approached the Respondent
authorities seeking grant of family pension requesting that the
service rendered under temporary status be counted for the purpose
of pensionary benefits. The other Appellants similarly submitted
representations in the years 2016 and 2017 seeking grant of
pensionary benefits.
13. The Respondents, however, rejected their claims on the ground
that the employees had not been 'formally regularised' as Group 'D'
152
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
employees, which, according to the Respondents, was a mandatory
prerequisite for entitlement to pension under the applicable Scheme.
14. Aggrieved by such denial, Appellant - Bhikhani Devi instituted O.A.
No. 050/00372 of 2017 before the Tribunal, seeking grant of family
pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 ["CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972"], while the other two Appellants similarly
approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 050/00081 of 2018 and O.A.
No. 050/00609 of 2017, respectively, seeking pensionary benefits.
15. The Tribunal, by order dated 27.03.2018, allowed the Original
Application filed by Bhikhani Devi and directed the Respondents to
consider her claim in light of earlier decisions rendered in favour of
similarly situated employees. The Tribunal, by subsequent orders
30.07.2018 and 03.08.2018, allowed the Original Applications filed by
Appellants Bahuru Sahu and Pitambar Jha and issued similar directions.
16. The Respondent-Union of India challenged the said orders by
filing writ petitions before the High Court. The High Court, vide the
Impugned Judgments, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the
orders passed by the Tribunal. The High Court, inter alia, held that the
claims were liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches,
and further observed that in the absence of formal regularisation,
the Appellants were not entitled to pensionary benefits. The High
Court also took the view that the earlier decisions relied upon by
the Tribunal did not constitute binding precedent, as they had not
considered certain clauses of the Scheme.
17. Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgments, the present Appeals by
way of filing Special Leave Petitions before this Court have been
preferred by the Appellants.
18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that
that the claims of the Appellants could not have been rejected on
the ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as the claim for pension
constitutes a continuing cause of action. Reliance in this regard
has been placed upon the decision of this Court in M.L. Patil (Dead)
through LRs v. State of Goa and Another2, wherein it has been
held that pension is a recurring cause and therefore cannot be denied
on the ground of delay.
2
(2023) 1 SCC 660
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
153
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
19. On merits, the counsel submits that the Appellants having rendered
long and continuous uninterrupted service extending over
decades, and having been conferred temporary status, are entitled
to pensionary benefits under the applicable statutory framework. It
is contended that temporary government servants are not excluded
from the purview of pension, reliance is placed upon the Central
Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 ["CCS (Temporary
Service) Rules, 1965"], to contend that a temporary government
servant who retires upon attaining the age of superannuation after
rendering not less than the prescribed period of 10 years service,
shall be governed by the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972, and shall be entitled to superannuation pension, gratuity, and
family pension.
20. He further submits that an Office Memorandum bearing No. 2/4/87PIC dated 14.04.1987 issued under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972,
clarifies that even temporary government servants, upon rendering
the requisite period of service, are to be brought within the purview of
pensionary benefits, and that the requirement of holding a substantive
pensionable post stands dispensed with in such cases. It is thus
urged that the statutory framework does not exclude temporary
employees from pensionary entitlement, and any interpretation to
the contrary would be erroneous.
21. Learned counsel submits that in similar factual circumstances,
pensionary benefits have been extended to similarly situated
employees. Reference is made to the Order dated 03.09.2015 passed
by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 570 of 2013, granting pensionary benefits,
which was upheld by the High Court, and the same has subsequently
been implemented by the Respondents. It is contended that there exists
no distinguishing feature between the said case and the present case.
22. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of
this Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (supra), to contend that upon
completion of three years of continuous service with temporary status,
casual labourers are to be treated at par with Group 'D' employees
and are entitled to benefits admissible to regular employees.
23. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of this Court in
Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others3 and
3
(2024) 9 SCC 327
154
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Jaggo v. Union of India and Others4 to submit that employees
performing essential and continuous duties over long periods cannot
be treated as temporary or casual merely on account of nomenclature.
24. Learned counsel further submits that the circular/letter dated
30.11.1992 does not make regularisation a precondition for
entitlement to pension, but merely provides that 50% of the
service rendered under temporary status shall be counted for
the purpose of pension computation. It is contended that the
said circular deals with the quantum of pension, and not with the
entitlement, and any interpretation to the contrary is arbitrary.
25. He further submits that the Appellants upon being granted temporary
status were receiving regular pay and not contingency wages,
therefore, they cannot be said to be a part of an "extra-temporary
establishment". He rests his submissions by stating that denial of
pensionary benefits to employees who have rendered long years
of service, particularly those belonging to economically weaker
sections, on the ground of financial burden, is arbitrary and contrary
to constitutional principles of social justice and fairness.
26. Per contra, learned A.S.G. appearing on behalf of the RespondentsUnion of India supported the impugned judgments and contends that
the Department has strictly acted in accordance with the Scheme,
which exclusively governs the service conditions of the Appellants.
27. He submits that conferment of temporary status does not confer
any right to regularisation. Reliance is placed upon Paragraphs 6
and 7 of the Scheme to contend that 50% of the service rendered
under temporary status is to be counted for the purpose of
retirement benefits only after regularisation as a Group 'D'
employee, and that conferment of temporary status does not
automatically entail appointment against a regular post. It is contended
that appointments to Group 'D' posts are governed by the applicable
Recruitment Rules and are subject to availability of vacancies and
selection in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
28. He contends that, as per Paragraph 8 of the Scheme and departmental
letter dated 30.11.1992, after rendering three years of continuous
service with temporary status, casual labourers are merely treated at
4
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
155
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
par with temporary Group 'D' employees for limited purposes, such
as contribution to the General Provident Fund and eligibility for certain
advances. However, such parity does not extend to pensionary or
retiral benefits, which are contingent upon formal regularisation.
29. Learned A.S.G. further submits that the service conditions of the
Appellants are governed exclusively by the Scheme and not by
the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 or the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972. It is contended that a clear distinction exists between
a "temporary government servant" and a "temporary status casual
labourer", the former being governed by statutory service rules,
whereas the latter is governed by the Scheme. Reliance is placed upon
Rule 1(4)(d) and (e) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965,
to contend that the said Rules do not apply to persons employed in
extra-temporary establishments or those paid out of contingencies.
30. It is further submitted that the Department has, in fact, framed
successive Recruitment Rules, which provide for a channel of
regularisation, including reservation of a percentage of vacancies for
casual labourers with temporary status. However, since the Appellants
were never selected or regularised under these Rules during their
service tenure, they cannot now claim pensionary benefits. Reliance
is placed upon the decision of this Court in Indian Council of
Agricultural Research and Another v. Santosh5, to contend that
in the absence of regularisation, no pensionary benefits entitlement
could be claimed.
31. Lastly, learned A.S.G. submits a chart indicating the service particulars
of the employees, to demonstrate that none of the Appellants were
regularised prior to their retirement, and did not fulfil the eligibility
criteria for pensionary benefits, and extending such benefits would
have significant financial implications for the Respondents.
32. Having heard the counsel for both the parties and on perusal
of pleadings and material on record, the issue that arises for
consideration can be carved out as follows:
'Whether temporary status casual labourer, in the absence
of a formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to
pensionary benefits on superannuation or not?'
5
(2006) 11 SCC 157
156
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
33. Before adverting to the above question and interpreting the Scheme
involved in the present factual matrix, we find it apposite to delineate
the legal framework governing the rights of casual and temporary
employees. This Court has over the years developed jurisprudence
concerning rights of casual labourers and temporary employees
which needs to be adverted to.
34. In Jagrit Mazdoor Union (supra), this Court held that upon
conferment of temporary status and completion of three years of
continuous service, casual labourers are to be treated at par with
Group 'D' employees and would thereby be entitled to such benefits
admissible to regular employees. The Court observed that there
could be no justification in withholding benefits from such employees
and emphasised the obligation of the State, as a model employer,
to act in consonance with the Directive Principles of State Policy as
provided in the Constitution of India.
35. Further, in Vinod Kumar (supra), this Court recognised that where
employees have rendered continuous service, performing duties
indistinguishable from those discharged by regular employees, the
distinction between temporary and permanent employment becomes
substantively illusory and the failure to recognise the true nature of
such service would be contrary to the principles of equity and fairness.
36. In Jaggo (supra), this Court reiterated that employees labelled as
temporary or part-time, but who have in fact rendered continuous
and essential service over long periods, cannot be denied benefits
available to regular employees merely on account of nomenclature.
The Court held that such engagement is neither sporadic nor casual,
but is in the nature of regular employment, thereby necessitating
extension of all corresponding service benefits.
37. In this context, the principle laid down by this Court in Yashwant Hari
Katakkar v. Union of India and Others6 also assumes significance,
wherein this 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,
and such an employee is liable to be treated as having attained
permanent status.
6
(1996) 7 SCC 113
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
157
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
38. Perusal of the above decisions of this Court establish a consistent
judicial approach that long-serving employees, whether casual or
temporary, particularly those who have been conferred a recognised
status and extended benefits akin to regular employees, cannot
be denied corresponding benefits including social security and
pensionary benefits. The emphasis must be on ensuring that the
State does not retain such employees in a precarious condition while
extracting services identical to those performed by regular employees.
39. This approach is firmly rooted in the constitutional mandate of
equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Any classification, resulting in denial of any benefits to a class of
employees who are otherwise similarly situated in terms of duties
and responsibilities would fall foul of constitutional ethos. Further,
the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 38, 39
and 43, cast a positive obligation upon the State to ensure social and
economic justice, fair conditions of work, and a decent standard of
life for labourers. Pension, in this context, is not a gratuitous benefit
but a facet of social welfare and economic justice.
40. The concept of the State as a model employer, read in conjunction
with the aforesaid constitutional mandate, reinforces the obligation
upon the State to extend fair and equitable treatment to employees
who have rendered long and continuous service and that the
State cannot extract services of a permanent nature while denying
corresponding benefits.
41. At this stage, it is also necessary to note that pension is not a bounty
but a vested and enforceable constitutional right. This Court in State
of Jharkhand and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and
Another7 has categorically held that pension is a hard-earned benefit
amassed by an employee by virtue of long and continuous service
and is in the nature of "property" within the meaning of Article 300A
of the Constitution of India.
42. Once pension is recognised as a constitutional right in the nature
of property, it cannot be taken away except by authority of law. A
statutory right cannot be rendered illusory on account of inaction of
the employer, and such inaction cannot defeat or deny a constitutional
7
(2013) 12 SCC 210
158
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
right. It is in the light of this above discussed judicial approach of
this Court over a period of time, the provisions of the Scheme and
the subsequent applicable circulars must be read, understood and
interpreted.
43. Let us, now, turn to the Scheme that is applicable to the facts of
the present case. The principles emanating from Jagrit Mazdoor
Union (supra), as discussed hereinabove, are directly incorporated
in formation of the said Scheme. The relevant portion of the decision
is reproduced herein:
"...After rendering three years of continuous service with
temporary status, the casual labourers shall be treated at
par with temporary Grade 'D' employees of the Department
of Posts and would thereby be entitled to such benefits as
are admissible to Group 'D' employees on regular basis."
(emphasis supplied)
44. In compliance of the above, the Department of Posts formulated
the Scheme for integration of casual labourers within the structured
service framework, progressive extension of service benefits to
such employees ultimately leading to their regularization in service.
It would be apposite to refer to the text of the 1991 Scheme, which
reads as follows:
"

 Government of India
Ministry of Communications
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110001
NO: 45-95/87-SPB.I
New Delhi, dated 12.4.1991
To:
All CPMG/PMG
All Principals, PTC
Controller Foreign Mails, Mumbai
Director, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai National Postal Academy,
Ghaziabad
Heads of all other Administrative Offices.
[2026] 7 S.C.R.
159
Bhikhani Devi and Etc. v. Union of India and Others
Subject: Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status
and Regularisation) Scheme.
Sir,
In compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, a scheme was drawn up by this Department
in consultation with the Ministries of Law, Finance &
Personnel, and the President has been pleased to approve
the said scheme. The Scheme is as follows:
1.
"Temporary Status" would be conferred on the casual
labourers in employment as on 29.11.89 and who
continue to be currently employed and have rendered
continuous service of at least one year. During the
year they must have been engaged for a period of
240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing
five days weeks)
2.
Such casual workers engaged for full working hours
viz., 8 hours including 1⁄2 hour's lunch time will be
paid at daily rates on the basis of the minimum of
the pay scale for a regular Group D official including
DA, HRA and CCA.
3.
Benefit of increment at the same rate as applicable
to a Group D employee would be taken into account
for one year of service from the date of conferment
of Temporary Status. Such increment will be taken
into account after every one year of service subject
to performance of duty for at least 240 days (206
days in establishments observing five days week)
in the year.
4.
Leave entitlement will be one day for every 10 days
of work. Casual Leave or any other kind of leave
except maternity leave, will not be admissible.