Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 1 June 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 612
A casual labourer given temporary status under the Department of Posts' 1991 Scheme who completes three years in that status is entitled to pension on superannuation without regularisation; arrears for two appellants were limited to three years and two months.
Facts
The appellants were former casual labourers (Night Guards) in the Department of Posts in Bihar, or the widow of one, engaged from 1971, 1972 and 1981. Under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991, framed after Jagrit Mazdoor Union v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., they were given temporary status from 29.11.1989. A circular of 30.11.1992 said such labourers, after three years in that status, would be treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees. They were never formally regularised and retired between 2008 and 2015. Their claims for pension and family pension were rejected for want of regularisation. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna allowed their applications, but the Patna High Court set aside those orders on the grounds of delay and laches and absence of regularisation. The appellants came to the Supreme Court.
Questions before the Court
- Whether a temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a formal order of regularisation, is entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation.
- Whether the claim for pension was barred by delay and laches.
What the Court held
- The 1991 Scheme and the circular of 30.11.1992 are beneficial and must be read as a whole. The words 'such as' in the circular show that the listed benefits are illustrative, so temporary status labourers who complete three years get all benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees, including pension.
- Clause 6 of the Scheme, which counts 50% of temporary status service after regularisation, does not create the pension right. It gives an additional benefit where regularisation happens; absence of regularisation does not extinguish the entitlement.
- Parity under the Scheme is parity in service benefits, not identity of status. Pension under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, read with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, is therefore available on ten years' qualifying service. The plea that the appellants were paid from contingencies could not defeat this.
- Pension is a deferred wage and a right in the nature of property under Article 300A; it cannot be denied on the ground of financial burden.
- A pension claim is a continuing cause of action and is not defeated by delay alone, but arrears for Bhikhani Devi and Bahuru Sahu were confined to three years and two months before their Original Applications; Pitamber Jha was held entitled from the date of his retirement. The High Court's judgments were set aside and payment directed within three months.
Why it matters
The judgment answers whether temporary status casual labourers can claim pension without regularisation: they can, once they complete three years in that status and the qualifying service under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. It reads Clause 6 of the 1991 Scheme as giving an additional benefit rather than a condition, treats pension as property under Article 300A, and applies the continuing cause of action rule while limiting arrears.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“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.’”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
Provisions interpreted
- Rule 10(1-B), Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965
- Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972
- Clauses 6 and 8, Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 (Department of Posts)
- Article 300A, Constitution
Case and bench
- Parties
- Bhikhani Devi etc. v. Union of India
- Case
- Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 28802-28804 of 2019)
- Decided
- 1 June 2026
- Bench
- Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by Augustine George Masih, J.; Sanjay Karol, J. also signed it. No separate opinion.