2026 INSC 612

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 1 of 54

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.28802 -28804 OF 2019)

BHIKHANI DEVI AND ETC. … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA

AND OTHERS

… RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

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

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,

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 2 of 54

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

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 3 of 54

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 Another

1, 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

1

1990 Supp SCC 113

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 4 of 54

and bringing them within the structured service

framework of the Department.

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

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 5 of 54

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).

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 6 of 54

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’ 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,

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 7 of 54

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

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 8 of 54

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

Another

2, 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

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 9 of 54

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. 2/4/87-PIC dated 14.04.1987

issued under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972,

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 10 of 54

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.

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 11 of 54

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 Others

3 and Jaggo v. Union of

India and Others

4 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

3

(2024) 9 SCC 327

4

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 12 of 54

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 Respondents–Union of India supported

the impugned judgments and contends that the

Department has strictly acted in accordance

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 13 of 54

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 par with

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 14 of 54

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,

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 15 of 54

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. Santosh

5, 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.

5

(2006) 11 SCC 157

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 16 of 54

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?’

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

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 17 of 54

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

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 18 of 54

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 Others

6 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.

38. Perusal of the above decisions of this Court

establish a consistent judicial approach that

long-serving employees, whether casual or

6

(1996) 7 SCC 113

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 19 of 54

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

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 20 of 54

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 Another

7 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.

7

(2013) 12 SCC 210

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 21 of 54

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

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)

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 22 of 54

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.

Subject: Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary

Status and Regularisation) Scheme.

Sir,

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 23 of 54

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 ½

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. No encashment of leave

is permissible on termination of services for

any reason or on the casual labourers

quitting service.

5. Maternity leave to lady full time casual

labourers will be allowed as admissible to

regular Group D employees.

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 24 of 54

6. 50% of the service rendered under

Temporary Status would be counted for the

purpose of retirement benefits after

regularization as a regular Group D official.

7. Conferment of Temporary Status does not

automatically imply that the casual

labourers would be appointed as a regular

Group D employee within any fixed time

frame. Appointment to Group D vacancies

will continue to be done as per extant

recruitment rules, which stipulate

preference to eligible LD employees.

8. After rendering three years continuous

service after conferment of temporary

status, the casual labourers would be

treated at par with temporary group D

employees for the purpose of contribution to

GPF. They would also further be eligible for

the grant of Festival Advance/Flood

Advance on the same conditions as are

applicable to temporary group D

employees, provided they furnish two

sureties from permanent Govt. Servants of

this Department.

9. Their entitlement to Productivity Linked

Bonus will continue to be at the rate

applicable to casual labourers.

10. Temporary status does not debar

dispensing with the services of a casual

labourer after following the due procedure.

11. If a labourer with temporary status

commits a misconduct and the same is

proved in an enquiry after giving him

reasonable opportunity, his services will be

dispensed with.

12. Casual Labourers may be regularised in

units other than recruiting units also,

subject to availability of vacancies.

13. For purpose of appointment as a regular

group D official, the casual labourers will

be allowed age relaxation to the extent of

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 25 of 54

service rendered by them as casual

labourers.

14. The casual labourers can be deployed,

anywhere within the recruitment unit

/territorial circle on the basis of availability

of work.

15. The engagement of casual labourers will

continue to be on daily rates of pay on need

basis.

16. The conferment of temporary status has no

relation to availability of sanctioned regular

group D posts.

17. No recruitment from open market for group

D posts except compassionate

appointments will be done till casual

labourers with the requisite qualifications

are available to fill up the posts in question.

Further action may be taken in regard to the

casual labourers by each unit, as per the above

said scheme. This issues with the approval of

Ministry of Finance and concurrence of

Integrated Finance vide their Dy.No.1282-

FA/91 dated 10.4.91.

Hindi version will follow.

Sd/-

(T.S. GOVINDRAJAN)

DIRECTOR (Staff)

Copy to:

1. The Officer-in Charge, APS Record Office

2. SPB.II/Admn./Vig.I, II, III/NCG/PAP/FAP/

Pension/PE-I/PE.II/EB/SR/Inspn./SR/

STN/Civil Wing (Postal)/ Postal Accounts

Section of the Directorate.

3. All recognized Unions/Associations

4. All dealing hands.

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 26 of 54

Sd/-

(R. KRINSHNAMOORTHY)

Asstt. Director General (SPN)”

45. Clause 2 of the Scheme provides that casual

labourers, upon conferment of temporary

status, shall be paid wages on the basis of the

minimum of the pay scale applicable to regular

Group ‘D’ employees together with Dearness

Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City

Compensatory Allowance. The grant of pay and

such other service benefits clearly indicates that

the Scheme intended to move casual labourers

away from the purely casual or daily -rated

framework to progressively align their service

conditions with the regular establishment.

46. Clause 4 further grants leave entitlement to

temporary status employees. Though the nature

of leave admissible thereunder may not be

identical to that available to regular employees,

the very conferment of leave entitlement

signifies that such employees are no longer to

be treated as mere casual labourers engaged on

a day-to-day basis, but as employees occupying

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 27 of 54

a recognised and continuing position within the

service structure.

47. Clause 6 of the Scheme is of considerable

significance and forms the central feature of the

present controversy. The said clause provides

for counting of a part of the service rendered

under temporary status for the purpose of

retirement benefits on regularisation as Group

‘D’ employee. The very incorporation of such a

stipulation recognises the pensionable

character of service rendered under temporary

status.

48. Although clause 7 indicates that conferment of

temporary status does not automatically imply

appointment as a regular Group ‘D’ employee

within a fixed time frame and that appointments

to Group ‘D’ vacancies would continue to be

governed by the applicable Recruitment Rules.

However, the said clause cannot be read in

isolation so as to defeat the overall beneficial

structure of the Scheme. The clause merely

clarifies that automatic absorption is not

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 28 of 54

contemplated immediately upon conferment of

temporary status; it does not dilute the clear

intent of the Scheme to progressively integrate

such employees within the regular service

framework.

49. Clause 8 further reinforces the aforesaid

position. The said clause expressly provides that

after rendering three years of continuous service

under temporary status, casual labourers shall

be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’

employees for purposes of contribution to

General Provident Fund and grant of advances

admissible to such employees. The phrase

“treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’

employees” assumes considerable significance.

The Scheme contemplates extension of benefits

admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees

after completion of the prescribed period of

service under temporary status.

50. Clauses 12 and 13 further indicate that the

Scheme was intended as a pathway towards

regularisation and not as a mechanism for

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 29 of 54

perpetual retention in temporary status. Clause

12 permits regularisation even in units other

than recruiting units subject to availability of

vacancies, thereby enlarging avenues for

absorption. Clause 13 grants age relaxation

equivalent to the service rendered as casual

labourers for purposes of regular appointment.

These provisions unmistakably demonstrate

that the Scheme consciously sought to facilitate

eventual integration by absorption/

regularisation of such employees into the

regular establishment.

51. Clause 17 assumes equal significance in

understanding the true intent underlying the

Scheme. It mandates that no recruitment from

open market for Group ‘D’ posts, except

compassionate appointment, shall be

undertaken so long as eligible casual labourers

possessing requisite qualifications are available

for appointment. Such a provision clearly

manifests the intention of the Scheme to accord

primacy to existing temporary status casual

labourers for eventual absorption against Group

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 30 of 54

‘D’ posts and to ensure that such employees are

not indefinitely deprived of regular service

benefits despite long years of continuous

service.

52. A cumulative reading of the Scheme clearly

establishes that it was conceived as a beneficial

and progressive framework intended to

gradually extend to temporary status casual

labourers the service conditions and benefits

associated with Group ‘D’ employees and it

cannot be construed in any other manner so as

to restrict and defeat its object of assimilation of

casual labourers to regular employees.

53. In furtherance of the Scheme, a circular dated

30.11.1992 came to be issued by the

Respondents. The said circular 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. It would be apposite to

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 31 of 54

reproduce the said circular dated 30.11.1992,

which reads as follows:

“ GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

(DEPARTMENT OF POSTS)

DAK BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG

No.66-9/91-SPB-I

New Delhi dated the 30, Nov., 1992

To,

All Chief Postmasters

General/Postmaster General

All Principals, Postal Training Centres,

Controller Foreign Mails, Bombay

Director Postal Staff College, Ghaziabad.

Heads of all other Administrative Offices.

Subject: Regularisation of Casual labourers.

Sir,

Vide this office circular letter No.45-

95/87-SPB-I dated 12.4.1991, a scheme for

giving temporary status to casual labourers

fulfilling certain conditions was circulated.

2. In their judgement dated 29.11.1989,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that after

rendering three years of continuous service

with temporary status, the casual labourers

shall be treated at par with temporary Group

‘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.

3. In compliance with the above -said

directive of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it has

been decided that the Casual labourers of this

Department conferred with temporary status

as per the scheme circulated in the above-said

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 32 of 54

circular No.45-95/87-SPB-I dated 12.4.1991

be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’

employees with effect from the date they

complete three years of service in the newly

acquired temporary status as per the above-

said scheme. From that date they will be

entitled to benefits admissible to temporary

Group employees such as:

1. All kinds of leave admissible to temporary

employees.

2. Holidays as admissible to regular

employees.

3. Counting of service for the purpose of

pension and terminal benefits as in the

case of temporary employees appointed on

regular basis for those temporary

employees who are given temporary status

and who complete 3 years of service in that

status while granting them pension and

retirement benefits after their

regularisation.

4. Central Government Employees Insurance

Scheme.

5. G.P.F.

6. Medical Aid.

7. L.T.C.

8. All advances admissible to temporary

Group D employees

9. Bonus.

4. Further action may be taken

accordingly and proper service records of such

employees may also be maintained.

5. Hindi version will follow.

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

(R.KRIGHNAMOORTHY)

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 33 of 54

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL (SPN)

Copy to:-

The Officer in Charge – APS Record Office,

Kamptee, APO

SPB-/Admn/Vig.III/II/I/NCG/PAP/Pen./PE-

I&II/EB/SR/STN/Civil Wing(P)/Postal

Accounts Section of the Directorate.

All Recognised Unions/Associations.

Sd/-

(R.KRISHNAMOORTHY)

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL (SPN) ”

54. The enumeration of benefits listed in the

circular dated 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.

55. It may be noted here that the Respondents

contend that temporary status casual labourers

are extended only the benefits that are specified

in the Scheme and Circular dated 30.11.1992

and are not entitled for pensionary benefits. The

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 34 of 54

said submission, in our considered opinion, is

misconceived. 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. This is also

evident from the observations in Jagrit

Mazdoor Union (supra), which form basis of

the Scheme and Circular dated 30.11.1992, and

provides to extend all benefits as admissible to

temporary Group ‘D’ employees without any

restrictions. Therefore, the circular, as earlier

observed, 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.

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 35 of 54

56. Before proceeding further, it becomes necessary

to deal with another contention advanced on

behalf of the Respondents that Clause 6 of the

Scheme contemplates counting of 50% service

rendered under temporary status towards

retirement benefits only after fo rmal

regularisation as Group ‘D’ employee and,

therefore, in the absence of regularisation, no

pensionary benefits can be granted. The said

submission cannot be accepted in the manner

sought to be canvassed. Clause 6 cannot be

read in isolation divorced from the principles

and purpose underlying the Scheme and the

circular dated 30.11.1992. The judgment of this

Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (supra), 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 dated 30.11.1992 further clarifies that

such employees would be entitled to counting of

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 36 of 54

service for pension and terminal benefits as

admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees.

57. The expression “after regularisation” occurring

in Clause 6 cannot be 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 does

not create the pensionary entitlement itself,

rather, it provides an additional benefit by

directing that half of the service rendered under

temporary status to be counted towards grant of

retirement benefits upon regularisation. The

pensionary entitlement of temporary status

employees who have completed the prescribed

period of service flows independently from the

Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992.

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

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 37 of 54

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 constru ed as

extinguishing or defeating the underlying

entitlement to pensionary benefits.

58. At this stage, it also becomes necessary to

appreciate the distinction between different

categories of employees engaged within the

service framework in the Department of Posts.

Broadly, four categories of employees emerge

from the statutory and administrative work

structure involved in the matter at hand,

namely: (i) casual labourers; (ii) temporary

status casual labourers; (iii) temporary

Government employees; and (iv) regular

Government employees.

59. A casual labourer is merely a daily-rated worker

engaged on need basis and is entitled only to

daily wages for the period during which work is

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 38 of 54

performed. Such employee does not possess any

structured service status nor entitled to any

service benefits ordinarily available to

Government employees.

60. The second category is that of a temporary

status casual labourer. The conferment of

temporary status not only initiates the process

of integration of such employee within a

structured service framework but extends

certain service protections and benefits under

the Scheme. Nevertheless, such employee

remains a temporary status casual labourer and

does not become a temporary Government

servant.

61. The third category is that of temporary

Government employees which are governed by

the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, while

the fourth category comprises of regular

Government employees governed by the regular

service rules applicable to permanent

Government servants.

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 39 of 54

62. It is to be noted that these aforesaid four

categories are not to be conflated as stages

required to be gone through to become a regular

employee. It may be pointed here that a casual

labourer can directly become a regular

employee, if the Scheme provides for such

transition. A temporary Government employee,

however, definitely has two stages leading to

permanent employment i.e. initial appointment

as temporary Government employee and upon

confirmation in service, his status is changed to

regular government employee.

63. For casual labourers, the Scheme provides for a

progression to regular employment. Initially the

employee enters service as a casual labourer.

Thereafter, upon satisfying the conditions

prescribed under Clause 1 of the Scheme,

he/she is conferred temporary status and

continues under such status. Upon completion

of the prescribed conditions and subject to the

applicable Recruitment Rules, the employee

becomes eligible for regularisation against

Group ‘D’ posts and ultimately regularized and

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 40 of 54

appointed as regular employee on availability of

vacancies.

64. The Scheme, in question, which provides for

grant of temporary status and regularisation for

casual labourers recognises four categories of

employees operating within the service

structure, however, the progression

contemplated therein essentially unfolds in

three stages i.e. engagement as a casual

labourer, conferment and continuance of

temporary status, and eventual regularisation

against Group ‘D’ posts.

65. It is apposite to highlight and emphasize that

although under the Scheme the temporary

status of casual labourers continues till his

regularization in service, however, on

completion of the period of three years, the

service conditions are materially changed as he

is treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’

employees and extended all benefits that are

admissible to such employees.

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 41 of 54

66. The submission advanced on behalf of the

Respondents, 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 aforesaid is

found to be misplaced.

67. 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

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 42 of 54

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.

68. In other words, the Scheme 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

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 43 of 54

admissible benefits. The parity contemplated

under the Scheme is thus parity in service

benefits and not identity of service status.

69. Once the Scheme and the circular dated

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.

70. As already discussed hereinabove, the Scheme

and the circular dated 30.11.1992 extend to

temporary status employees all the benefits that

are available to temporary Group ‘D’ employees.

Now, it becomes necessary to examine the

nature of pensionary benefits available to such

temporary Government employees under the

statutory framework.

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 44 of 54

71. The services of the temporary Government

servants are governed by the CCS (Temporary

Service) Rules, 1965. It is not disputed that a

temporary Government servant is entitled to

terminal benefits including pension and on his

death family pension. Rule 10(1-B) of the said

Rules specifically provides that where a

temporary Government servant retires on

attaining the age of superannuation after

rendering temporary service of not less than ten

years, such employee shall be entitled to

superannuation pe nsion and retirement

gratuity and on death family pension in

accordance with the provisions of the CCS

(Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 10(1-B) is

reproduced herein:

“10. Terminal gratuity payable to

temporary Government servants.

xxx xxx xxx

(1-B) In the case of a temporary Government

servant who retires from service on attaining

the age of superannuation or on his being

declared to be permanently incapacitated for

further Government service by the appropriate

medical authority, after he has rendered

temporary service of not less than 10 years or

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 45 of 54

who has sought voluntary retirement by giving

three months' notice in writing on completion of

20 years' service, provisions of sub-rule (1)

shall not apply and in accordance with the

provisions of the Central Civil Services

(Pension) Rules, 1972-

(i) such a Government servant shall be eligible

for the grant of superannuation, invalid or

retiring pension, as the case may be, and

retirement gratuity; and

(ii) in the event of his death after retirement, the

members of his family shall be eligible for the

grant of family pension.

xxx xxx xxx”

72. As is apparent from the above, the statutory

framework governing temporary Government

employees itself accepts and acknowledges

entitlement of pensionary benefits and that the

same are not confined only to regular

permanent employees but are also available to

temporary Government servants upon

completion of the prescribed qualifying service.

The CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 thus

constitute the statutory source recognising

pensionary entitlement of temporary employees

who have rendered specified and continuous

service.

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 46 of 54

73. The contention 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 also

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 dated 30.11.1992.

Once parity in service benefits with temporary

Group ‘D’ employees is consciously extended

under the Scheme, pensionary benefits flowing

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 47 of 54

under Rule 10(1-B) of the Rules of 1965 cannot

be selectively denied by ignoring or overlooking

the statutory right.

74. 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. As already noticed

hereinabove, this Court has recognised pension

as a constitutional right in the nature of

property protected under Article 300A of the

Constitution of India as held in Jitendra

Kumar Srivastava Case (supra) and it,

therefore, cannot be denied on the plea of

financial burden.

75. From the above discussion what follows is that

when the statutory framework including CCS

(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is read in

conjunction with the Scheme and the circular

dated 30.11.1992, the inescapable conclusion

which emerges is that a casual labour, on being

conferred the temporary status, upon

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 48 of 54

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 under

Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service)

Rules, 1965 subject, of course, to fulfilling the

eligibility criteria provided therein. This right is

not dependent on regularisation. What is

conceived is conferring of additional benefit of

previous service under the Scheme as would be

available to an employee on regularisation apart

from the benefits conferred under the rules

becoming applicable on this now acquired new

status of a regular employee.

76. The question as framed in para 32 above stands

answered as follows:

‘A temporary status casual labourer would be

entitled to pensionary benefits on

superannuation even in the absence of

regularisation.’

77. What remains to be seen now is whether the

Appellants, in the cases before us, fulfil the

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 49 of 54

eligibility criteria under Rule 10 (1-B) of CCS

(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 so as to be

entitled for pensionary benefits.

78. The service trajectory of Late Suraj Sah as per

the material placed on record, thus falls into

three distinct phases: (i) service as a casual

labourer from 1972 till 29.11.1989; (ii) service

as a temporary status casual labourer from

29.11.1989 till 30.11.1992; and (iii)

continuance as a temporary status casual

labourer with entitlement to benefits admissible

to temporary G roup ‘D’ employees from

30.11.1992 till his superannuation on

31.12.2008.

79. From the above what emerges is that Late Suraj

Sah was initially engaged as a casual labourer

in the year 1972 and continued as such till

29.11.1989. During this period, he remained a

daily-rated worker and was not entitled to any

service benefits. Upon introduction of the

Scheme, he was conferred temporary status

with effect from 29.11.1989. Thereafter, upon

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 50 of 54

completion of three years of continuous service

under temporary status on 30.11.1992, though

his formal status continued to remain that of a

temporary status casual labourer, he became

entitled to the benefits admissible to temporary

Group ‘D’ employees. Thus, while his

nomenclature remained unchanged, his service

benefits thereafter stood aligned with those

admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees as

per the Scheme and the circular dated

30.11.1992. He ultimately superannuated on

31.12.2008 while continuing as a temporary

status casual labourer. So from 30.11.1992 till

the date of superannuation i.e. 31.12.2008, the

period being more than the minimum of 10

years, he became entitled for benefits under

Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service)

Rules, 1965 read with the CCS (Pension) Rules,

1972. Thereby making him entitled to grant of

superannuation pension and other retirement

benefits as admissible under the above rules.

80. The service records of Bahuru Sahu and

Pitamber Jha would also reflect that they were,

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 51 of 54

after initial appointment as casual labourers,

conferred temporary status, w.e.f. 29.11.1989

till 30.11.1992 and continued as temporary

status casual labourers till their date of

superannuation 30.04.2008 and 31.10.2015

respectively. The period being in excess of

minimum qualifying service of ten years for

entitlement of pension, they would be entitled to

grant of all retiral benefits as available under the

Rules.

81. Insofar as the contention of the Respondents

with regard to delay and laches is concerned, it

is well settled that 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

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 52 of 54

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 Or iginal

Applications before the Tribunal, consistent

with settled principles governing service

jurisprudence.

82. Consequently, Appellant, Bhikhani Devi, being

the widow and legal representative of Late Suraj

Sah, shall be entitled to pensionary benefits

accrued to Late Suraj Sah, if any, together with

admissible family pension. Similarly, Appellant,

Bahuru Sahu shall be entitled to pensionary

and consequential retiral benefits in accordance

with law. However, the arrears payable to them

shall remain confined to the period of three

years and two months preceding the date of

filing of the Original Application before the

Tribunal.

83. Likewise, Appellant, Pitamber Jha, who

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 53 of 54

superannuated from service on 31.10.2015,

shall also be entitled to pensionary and

consequential retiral benefits in accordance

with law from the date of his retirement.

84. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings

recorded hereinabove, we are of the considered

opinion that the Impugned Judgments passed

by the High Court proceeded on an erroneous

interpretation of the Scheme and the circular

dated 30.11.1992. The same are unsustainable

in law and are, therefore, set aside.

85. The Respondents are accordingly directed to

compute and release the pensionary and

consequential retiral benefits payable to the

Appellants in accordance with law within a

period of three months from the date of this

judgment. In case of default, interest @ 6% per

annum from the date of accrual till

disbursement shall be payable to the

appellants.

86. The Appeals are allowed in above terms.

C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 Page 54 of 54

87. There shall be no order as to cost.

88. Pending application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

.……..………..……………………..J.

[ SANJAY KAROL ]

.……..………..……………………..J.

[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]

NEW DELHI;

JUNE 01, 2026.