2026 Supreme(SC) 659

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Bhikhani Devi And Etc. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8354-8356 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 28802-28804 of 2019)
Decided On : 01-06-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Pension – Temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in absence of regularisation.
(2) Pension is a ‘Property’ – Pension is not a matter of grace dependent upon financial convenience of employer, but a deferred wage earned through long years of service.
(3) Directive Principles of State Policy cast positive obligation upon State to ensure social and economic justice, fair conditions of work, and decent standard of life for labourers – Pension is not a gratuitous benefit but a facet of social welfare and economic justice.

Headnote:

(A) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Rule 3 – Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 – Clauses 12, 13 and 17 – Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 – Rule 10(1-B) – Rights of casual and temporary employees to get pensionary benefits – Temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in absence of regularisation – 1991 Scheme was conceived as a beneficial and progressive framework intended to gradually extend to temporary status casual labourers 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 – Although, conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer under the Scheme does not ipso facto transform such employee into a temporary Government servant, 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 – Scheme nowhere provides that upon completion of three years’ service under temporary status, employee becomes a temporary Government servant – Parity contemplated under the Scheme is parity in service benefits and not identity of service status – Respondents directed to compute and release pensionary and consequential retiral benefits payable to Appellants in accordance with law. (Paras 52, 67, 68, 76 and 85)

(B) Labour and Industrial Law – Daily, Casual and Temporary Employment – Distinction between different categories of employees in Department of Posts – 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 performed – Such employee does not possess any structured service status nor entitled to any service benefits ordinarily Government employees – Second category is that of a temporary status casual labourer – Conferment of temporary status not only initiates 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 – Third category is that of temporary Government employees which are governed by CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, while fourth category comprises of regular Government employees governed by regular service rules applicable to permanent Government servants – Casual labourer can directly become a regular employee, if Scheme provides for such transition – However, a temporary Government employee 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. (Paras 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62)

(C) Service Law – Pension – [Constitution of India – Articles 14, 38, 39 and 43] – Rights of casual and temporary employees to get pensionary benefits – Long-serving employees, whether casual or temporary, particularly those who have been conferred recognised status and extended benefits akin to regular employees, cannot be denied corresponding benefits including social security and pensionary benefits – 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 – Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 38, 39 and 43, cast positive obligation upon State to ensure social and economic justice, fair conditions of work, and decent standard of life for labourers – Pension is not a gratuitous benefit but a facet of social welfare and economic justice – State as a model employer, cannot extract services of a permanent nature while denying corresponding benefits – Pension is not a bounty but a vested and enforceable constitutional right. (Paras 38, 39, 40 and 41)

(D) Constitution of India – Article 300A – Right to have property – Pension is not a matter of grace dependent upon financial convenience of employer, but a deferred wage earned through long years of service – Pension is a hard-earned benefit amassed by an employee by virtue of long and continuous service and is in nature of “property” within meaning of Article 300A of Constitution – Once pension is recognised as a constitutional right in 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 employer, and such inaction cannot defeat or deny a constitutional right. (Paras 41, 42 and 74)

Facts of the case:

The issue that arises for consideration is: ‘Whether temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation or not?

Findings of Court:

Appellant, Bhikhani Devi, being widow and legal representative of Late Suraj Sah, shall be entitled to pensionary benefits accrued to Late Suraj Sah, together with admissible family pension. Similarly, Appellant, Bahuru Sahu shall be entitled to pensionary and consequential retiral benefits in accordance with law. However, arrears payable to them shall remain confined to period of three years and two months preceding date of filing of Original Application before Tribunal.

Result : Appeals allowed.