Bhikhani Devi and Othersv.Union of India and Others

Legal Analysis: Bhikhani Devi and Others v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 612

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Decision: June 1, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 28802-28804 of 2019 against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 14.10.2019.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellants were either former employees or legal representatives of employees who had rendered long service as casual labourers (Night Guards) under the Department of Posts. They were conferred temporary status under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991, and after three years of continuous service were treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees, entitling them to benefits admissible to such employees. However, they were never formally regularised. Upon superannuation, they claimed pensionary benefits, which were denied on the ground that regularisation was a prerequisite. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed their claims, but the High Court reversed, holding that in the absence of regularisation, no pension could be granted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that: (i) upon completion of three years of service under temporary status, casual labourers become entitled to all benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees, including pensionary benefits under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972; (ii) regularisation is not a precondition; Clause 6 of the Scheme (counting 50% of temporary status service after regularisation) provides an additional benefit, not the sole source of pensionary entitlement; (iii) pension is a constitutional right in the nature of property under Article 300A; (iv) the claim for pension is a continuing cause of action, though arrears were restricted to three years and two months prior to filing of the original applications.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Bhikhani Devi and Others v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 612

Civil Appeal Nos.: Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 28802-28804 of 2019

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Decision: June 1, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgments and final orders dated 14.10.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna 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.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 (equality), Article 38, 39, 43 (Directive Principles – social and economic justice, fair conditions of work), Article 300A (right to property – pension as property).

• Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Governing pensionary benefits for Central Government employees.

• Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 – Rule 10(1-B) (temporary Government servant retiring on superannuation after not less than 10 years service is entitled to superannuation pension and retirement gratuity, and family pension on death).

• Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 – Clauses 1 to 17 (conferment of temporary status, pay parity, leave, counting of service for retirement benefits after regularisation, treatment at par with temporary Group 'D' employees after three years, age relaxation, bar on open market recruitment).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (1991) – Direction that after three years of continuous service with temporary status, casual labourers shall be treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees and entitled to benefits admissible to Group 'D' employees on regular basis.

• Vinod Kumar v. Union of India – Employees performing continuous and essential service over long periods cannot be treated as temporary or casual merely on account of nomenclature.

• Jaggo v. Union of India – Same principle – long-serving employees labelled temporary cannot be denied benefits available to regular employees.

• Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India – Where an employee has rendered long service and there is no justifiable reason for not conferring permanent status, denial of pensionary benefits on ground of absence of formal regularisation is a travesty of justice.

• State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava – Pension is a hard-earned benefit in the nature of property under Article 300A; it is a vested and enforceable constitutional right.

• M.L. Patil (Dead) through LRs v. State of Goa – Pension is a recurring cause of action; claim for pension cannot be defeated solely on ground of delay.

3. Relevant Facts

The appellants were either former employees or legal representatives of employees who worked as casual labourers (Night Guards) in the Department of Posts. Late Suraj Sah was appointed on 12.02.1972; Bahuru Sahu on 10.10.1971; Pitamber Jha on 20.06.1981. They rendered long, continuous and uninterrupted service spanning several decades.

On 12.04.1991, pursuant to directions of this Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union, the Department of Posts formulated the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991. The Scheme was communicated on 15.05.1991.

In furtherance of the Scheme, the appellants (or their predecessors) were conferred "temporary status" vide memo dated 20.11.1992 with effect from 29.11.1989. Subsequently, by circular/letter dated 30.11.1992, the Department conveyed that casual labourers conferred with temporary status and having rendered three years of continuous service with such status would be treated at par with 'temporary Group 'D' employees' and entitled to benefits including leave, holidays, GPF, medical facilities, LTC, advances, bonus, and counting of service for pension after regularisation.

Upon completion of three years, a further memo dated 03.05.2000 directed that Late Suraj Sah and Bahuru Sahu be treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees, entitling them to benefits admissible to that category, including consideration of service for pensionary benefits. However, none of the employees were formally regularised.

Late Suraj Sah retired on 31.12.2008, Bahuru Sahu on 30.04.2008, and Pitamber Jha on 31.10.2015. Late Suraj Sah passed away on 10.04.2015, leaving behind his widow Bhikhani Devi (appellant). The appellants approached the Tribunal seeking pensionary benefits, which was allowed. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's orders, holding that claims were barred by delay and laches and that in the absence of regularisation, no pension could be granted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether a temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation.

Issue No. 2: Whether the claim for pension could be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

Issue No. 3: What is the correct interpretation of Clause 6 of the 1991 Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. The Scheme and circular must be interpreted as beneficial legislation extending all benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees (Paras 43-55).

The Court traced the genesis of the Scheme to the direction in Jagrit Mazdoor Union that after three years of continuous service with temporary status, casual labourers shall be treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees and entitled to benefits admissible to Group 'D' employees on regular basis. Clause 2 of the Scheme provides pay at the minimum of pay scale of regular Group 'D' employees with allowances. Clause 4 grants leave entitlement. Clause 8 provides that after three years, they shall be treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees for GPF, advances, etc.

The circular dated 30.11.1992 expressly lists benefits including "counting of service for the purpose of pension and terminal benefits as in the case of temporary employees appointed on regular basis". The Court held that the use of the words "such as" indicates the list is illustrative, not exhaustive. The intention is to extend all benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees, including pensionary benefits.

B. Clause 6 of the Scheme does not make regularisation a precondition for pension (Paras 56-57).

Clause 6 states that "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." The Court held that this clause cannot be read in isolation. It does not create the pensionary entitlement itself; rather, it provides an additional benefit that half of the temporary status service shall be counted towards retirement benefits upon regularisation. The pensionary entitlement of temporary status employees who have completed three years of service and are treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees flows independently from the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992 read with Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

C. A temporary status casual labourer after three years is entitled to benefits under CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (Paras 58-73).

The Court distinguished four categories of employees: casual labourers, temporary status casual labourers, temporary Government servants, and regular Government servants. It held that while conferment of temporary status does not transform a casual labourer into a temporary Government servant, the Scheme and circular specifically extend benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees upon completion of three years of service under temporary status. Therefore, the service conditions of such employees become aligned with those of temporary Government servants, entitling them to pensionary benefits under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Rule 10(1-B) provides that a temporary Government servant who retires on superannuation after rendering not less than 10 years of service is eligible for superannuation pension, retirement gratuity and family pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The Court rejected the contention that the appellants were paid out of contingencies and therefore excluded from the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, holding that the service conditions underwent a substantial transformation upon extension of benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees.

D. Pension is a constitutional right in the nature of property; delay does not defeat the claim (Paras 40-42, 81).

Relying on Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, the Court held that pension is a hard-earned benefit, a vested and enforceable constitutional right in the nature of property under Article 300A. It cannot be taken away except by authority of law. The State cannot deny pension on the plea of financial burden. Regarding delay, the Court held that a claim for pension constitutes a continuing cause of action; however, arrears of pension were restricted to three years and two months prior to the filing of the Original Applications before the Tribunal.

E. The appellants fulfilled the qualifying service of ten years (Paras 77-80).

The Court computed the service of Late Suraj Sah: casual labourer from 1972 to 29.11.1989; temporary status from 29.11.1989 to 30.11.1992; and thereafter as temporary status with benefits at par with temporary Group 'D' employees from 30.11.1992 till superannuation on 31.12.2008 – a period exceeding ten years. Similarly, Bahuru Sahu and Pitamber Jha had more than ten years of service after being treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees. Therefore, they were entitled to pensionary benefits under Rule 10(1-B).

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• A temporary status casual labourer who has completed three years of continuous service under temporary status and is treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees becomes entitled to all benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees, including pensionary benefits under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Formal regularisation is not a precondition for such entitlement.

• Clause 6 of the 1991 Scheme (counting 50% of temporary status service after regularisation) provides an additional benefit and does not derogate from the independent pensionary entitlement flowing from the Scheme, the circular dated 30.11.1992, and the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules.

• The nomenclature of "temporary status casual labourer" cannot be used to deny benefits that have been consciously extended to such employees under the Scheme. The substance of service conditions, not the formal label, determines entitlement.

• Pension is a constitutional right in the nature of property under Article 300A; it cannot be denied on the ground of financial burden or administrative inaction. A claim for pension is a continuing cause of action, though arrears may be restricted by the principle of limitation.

7. Court's Examination and Analysis

The Court first traced the service history of the appellants and the evolution of the 1991 Scheme following Jagrit Mazdoor Union. It noted that the Scheme was intended as a beneficial and progressive framework to gradually integrate casual labourers into the regular establishment.

The Court examined each clause of the Scheme. It observed that Clause 2 (pay at minimum of regular Group 'D' scale), Clause 4 (leave entitlement), Clause 8 (GPF, advances after three years), Clause 12 (regularisation in other units), Clause 13 (age relaxation) and Clause 17 (bar on open market recruitment) all point towards a clear intention to assimilate temporary status casual labourers into the regular service framework. The circular dated 30.11.1992 further reinforced this by explicitly listing "counting of service for the purpose of pension and terminal benefits" as one of the benefits extended.

The Court then rejected the Respondents' narrow interpretation of Clause 6. It held that Clause 6 cannot be read in isolation to defeat the overall beneficial structure of the Scheme. The correct interpretation is that upon regularisation, the employee gets the additional benefit of having 50% of the temporary status service counted towards pension; but the employee already becomes entitled to pensionary benefits from the date he is treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees, provided he has the requisite qualifying service under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules.

The Court distinguished between the categories of employees and held that while temporary status casual labourers are not temporary Government servants, the Scheme and circular extend to them the same benefits as temporary Government servants. Thus, the distinction in nomenclature does not justify denial of pension.

On delay, the Court affirmed that pension is a continuing cause of action, but restricted arrears to three years and two months prior to the filing of the original applications before the Tribunal, as no explanation was offered for the delay in approaching the Tribunal.

The Court set aside the Impugned Judgments of the High Court and directed the Respondents to compute and release pensionary and consequential retiral benefits to the appellants within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum from the date of accrual till disbursement shall be payable.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a significant affirmation of the rights of long-serving casual labourers who were given temporary status but never regularised due to administrative inaction. It correctly interprets the Scheme as a beneficial legislation and refuses to give a narrow, hyper-technical reading to Clause 6. The Court's reasoning that the circular dated 30.11.1992 explicitly includes pensionary benefits in the list of extended benefits is unassailable. The reliance on Jitendra Kumar Srivastava to hold that pension is property under Article 300A strengthens the constitutional foundation of the claim. The distinction between the additional benefit under Clause 6 and the independent pensionary entitlement flowing from the Rules is logical and fair. The restriction of arrears to three years and two months balances the rights of the employees with the principles of limitation, without defeating the core claim.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly address the argument that Rule 1(4)(d) and (e) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules excludes persons employed in extra-temporary establishments or paid out of contingencies. The Court held that the service conditions underwent a transformation upon extension of benefits, but it did not examine whether the Department had issued any formal order bringing the appellants under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. However, given that the Scheme and circular extended "all benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees", the Court was justified in holding that the appellants became entitled to the statutory pensionary framework applicable to such employees. Another minor concern is that the judgment does not specify the exact calculation of the three years and two months limitation period for each appellant, but that can be determined by the Department.

Practical impact: This judgment will have a significant impact on thousands of casual labourers across various government departments who were conferred temporary status under similar schemes but were never regularised. It establishes that such employees are entitled to pensionary benefits upon superannuation without requiring formal regularisation. The judgment will also guide courts and tribunals in interpreting similar beneficial schemes. It reinforces the principle that the State cannot extract decades of service from employees while denying them pension on technical grounds.

9. Final Outcome

The Civil Appeals were allowed.

• The Impugned Judgments of the High Court dated 14.10.2019 were set aside.

• It was held that a temporary status casual labourer, after completion of three years of continuous service under temporary status and being treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees, becomes entitled to pensionary benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, subject to fulfilling the qualifying service of ten years. Formal regularisation is not a precondition.

• The Respondents were directed to compute and release the pensionary and consequential retiral benefits payable to the appellants in accordance with law within three months from the date of the judgment (i.e., by 1st September 2026). In case of default, interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accrual till disbursement shall be payable.

• Arrears of pension were restricted to the period of three years and two months preceding the date of filing of the Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

• No order as to costs.

10. Practical Application

For casual labourers who have been conferred temporary status under a similar scheme: You may be entitled to pensionary benefits upon superannuation even if you were never formally regularised. Check whether you were treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees after completing three years of service under temporary status. If so, and if you have rendered at least ten years of such service (including the period after being treated at par), you should claim pensionary benefits. File an application before the concerned administrative authority or the Central Administrative Tribunal. The claim for pension is a continuing cause of action, but arrears may be restricted to three years prior to filing. Do not delay.

For government departments (especially Department of Posts): Review the service records of all casual labourers who were conferred temporary status under the 1991 Scheme or similar schemes. Identify those who were treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees after three years of temporary status and who have superannuated without regularisation. Compute and release pensionary benefits in accordance with this judgment. Failure to comply within three months will attract interest at 6% per annum.

For lawyers representing similarly situated employees: Cite this judgment for the proposition that regularisation is not a precondition for pension where the Scheme and circular extend benefits at par with temporary Group 'D' employees. Use the service computation method adopted by the Court: count the service from the date the employee was treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees till superannuation. If that period is ten years or more, the employee is entitled to pension under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. Also rely on the principle that pension is property under Article 300A.

For Tribunals (CAT) and High Courts: When dealing with claims of temporary status casual labourers for pension, do not reject the claim solely on the ground of absence of formal regularisation. Examine whether the employee was extended benefits at par with temporary Group 'D' employees under the Scheme and circular. If yes, and if the employee has rendered the qualifying service, pensionary benefits must be granted. The defence of financial burden is not acceptable.

For employees who were never conferred temporary status or never treated at par: This judgment may not directly apply. You will need to establish that the Scheme was applicable to you and that you fulfilled the conditions for temporary status and for being treated at par. If the Department failed to confer temporary status despite eligibility, you may need to first seek a declaration of entitlement to temporary status.

11. Court Lines

Line 1 (Beneficial interpretation – Para 55):
"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."

Line 2 (Clause 6 not a precondition – Para 56):
"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'."

Line 3 (Pension as property – Para 41, quoting Jitendra Kumar Srivastava):
"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."

Line 4 (Blurring of distinction – Para 67):
"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."

Line 5 (Continuing cause of action – Para 81):
"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."

Line 6 (Entitlement without regularisation – Para 75):
"A casual labourer, 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 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."

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a casual labourer seeking pension after superannuation without regularisation: First, obtain all service records, especially the order conferring temporary status, the circular treating you at par with temporary Group 'D' employees after three years, and your retirement order. Compute the period from the date you were treated at par (or from the date of completion of three years of temporary status) till the date of superannuation. If that period is ten years or more, file a representation before the Department citing this judgment. If rejected, file an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal within the limitation period (but note that pension is a continuing cause of action, so delay may not defeat the claim, though arrears may be restricted). In the application, specifically plead that you are entitled to pension under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules because you were treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees, and that regularisation is not a precondition.

For a government department facing multiple claims: Do not wait for each claimant to approach the Tribunal. Conduct a proactive survey of all retired temporary status casual labourers who were treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees. Compute the qualifying service. Issue orders granting pension and family pension as applicable. Create a separate cell to handle these claims expeditiously. The financial outlay may be significant, but the Court has held that financial burden cannot be a ground to deny a constitutional right. Failure to comply may result in interest liability and contempt proceedings.

For a lawyer defending the government in similar cases: You may argue that the employee was never issued a formal order of regularisation and that Clause 6 of the Scheme clearly conditions the counting of temporary status service on regularisation. However, after this judgment, that argument will not succeed. Your better strategy is to examine whether the employee was indeed treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees after three years. If not, you may argue that the employee did not fulfil the conditions of the Scheme. Also examine whether the employee had the requisite ten years of service from the date of being treated at par. If the service is less than ten years, no pension is payable. Also, you may restrict arrears on the ground of delay if the employee approached the Tribunal after an unreasonable period without explanation.

For a Tribunal member or High Court judge: When a temporary status casual labourer claims pension, first determine whether the employee was conferred temporary status under a valid Scheme. Then determine whether the employee completed three years of continuous service under temporary status and was treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees. If yes, then compute the period from the date of such treatment (or from the date of completion of three years) till superannuation. If that period is ten years or more, the employee is entitled to superannuation pension, retirement gratuity and family pension (on death) under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules read with the CCS (Pension) Rules. Do not reject the claim on the ground of absence of formal regularisation. Do not accept the defence of financial burden. Regarding delay, while the claim for pension cannot be rejected, you may restrict arrears to three years prior to the filing of the application, following the general principle of limitation.

For an employee who died while in service (family pension claim): The legal heir can claim family pension on the same principles. The qualifying service of the deceased employee should be computed from the date of being treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees till the date of death. If that period is ten years or more, the family is entitled to family pension under Rule 10(1-B). The judgment of the Court applies equally to family pension claims.