SC Grants Pension Benefits to Temporary Status Casual Labourers

Case Details: Bhikhani Devi vs. Union of India [2026] 187 taxmann.com 61 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Augustine George Masih & Sanjay Karol, JJ.
• Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Aor for the Petitioner.
• Bijender Chahar, A.S.G., Rohit Khare, Ms Vimla Sinha, Ms Seema Bengani, Rajesh Kr. Singh, Jagdish Chandra, Mohan Prasad Gupta, Sushil Raaja, Advs., Amrish Kumar & Sudarshan Lamba, Aors for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellants were casual labourers (Night Guards) engaged by the Department of Posts who rendered long and continuous service till superannuation. Pursuant to the 1991 Scheme, they were conferred temporary status in 1992 with effect from 29-11-1989. The Circular dated 30-11-1992 provided that casual labourers who completed three years’ service under temporary status would be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees and would be extended the benefits admissible to such employees.

Appellants were never formally regularised and retired in 2008 and 2015. Their claims for pensionary benefits and family pension were rejected because formal regularisation as Group ‘D’ employees was a mandatory prerequisite for pension. The High Court upheld the rejection on the grounds of delay and absence of regularisation.

It was noted that the appellants had been treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees from 1992 till superannuation, thereby rendering service far in excess of the minimum qualifying period of ten years prescribed under Rule 10(1-B).

Further, it was noted that temporary status casual labourers who were treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees and had completed qualifying service under Rule 10(1-B) were entitled to pensionary benefits even in the absence of formal regularisation.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that pensionary benefits constitute a continuing cause of action and therefore could not be denied solely on the ground of delay. However, arrears were limited to three years and two months preceding the filing of the Original Applications.

Consequently, appellants were entitled to pensionary and consequential retirement benefits, the widow of the deceased employee was entitled to family pension, and the impugned judgments of the High Court were liable to be set aside with direction to release benefits within three months, failing which interest at 6 per cent per annum would be payable.

List of Cases Reviewed

• State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava [2013] 8 taxmann.com 654 (SC)/(2013) 12 SCC 210 (para 74) followed
• Order of High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil W.P. Case Nos.15420 of 2019, 11564 of 2019 and 13980 of 2019 dated 14-10-2019 (para 84) set aside

List of Cases Referred to

• Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. 1990 Supp SCC 113 (para 6)
• M.L. Patil v. State of Goa [2022] 5 taxmann.com 1089 (SC) (para 18)
• Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024) 9 SCC 327 (para 23)
• Jaggo v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 (para 23)
• Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Santosh 2006 taxmann.com 2974 (SC) (para 30)
• Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India (1996) 7 SCC 113 (para 37)
• State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava [2013] 8 taxmann.com 654 (SC) (para 41)