Casual Government Labourers Are Entitled To Pension, Says Supreme Court

Casual workers, who typically perform duties like those of night guards, are neither fully integrated into civil services nor excluded from it. Their labour is permanent, but their status on the records remains transitional. In one of the legal cases, where such workers dedicated more than 30 years of their lives to the Department of Posts, a secure retirement still remained uncertain due to administrative nomenclature. 

The case involved Bhikhani Devi (the widow of Suraj Sah), Bahuru Sahu, and Pitamber Jha, who served the DoP as casual labourers (night guards) starting from 1971 and 1972. Despite rendering continuous and uninterrupted service for several decades, they remained as casual labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991. In 1992, they were conferred with temporary status and treated at par with temporary Group D employees. However, the Department never issued formal orders of regularisation before their retirement between 2008 and 2015.

Suraj Sah retired in 2008 and passed away in 2015, leaving behind his widow Bhikhani Devi and minor children. Bahuru Sahu retired in 2008 and Pitamber Jha retired in 2015. When Bhikhani Devi approached the authorities for a family pension, and other appellants also submitted requests seeking pension. However, the Department denied their claim on the basis that they were not formally regularised as Group D employees, a mandatory condition to be eligible for receiving the pension.

Arguments

The appellants’ counsel argued that a pension is a ‘continuing cause of action’ and cannot be denied due to ‘delay and laches’. The counsel maintained that as the workers were treated at par with Group D employees for pay, leaves, and general provident fund (GPF), it was arbitrary to exclude them for pensioner benefits just because of administration inaction in formalising their status.  

The Union of India, represented by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), contended that the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991, exclusively governed the appellants’ service conditions and that 50 per cent of temporary service could be counted for retirement only when such an employee is formally regularised as a Group D employee. They argued that temporary status does not equate with a temporary government servant and that extending them the retirement benefits would impose a significant financial burden on the state.

Court Observation

The Supreme Court observed that the difference between temporary and permanent employment becomes ‘substantively illusory’ when an employee performs the same duties as regular staff for decades. 

Referring to the previous judgments of the court, the court noted a consistent judicial approach “that long-serving employees, whether casual or temporary, particularly those who have been conferred with a recognised status and extended benefits akin to regular employees, cannot be denied corresponding benefits, including social security and pension 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.” 

The Supreme Court said, “It is also necessary to note that pension is not a bounty, but a vested and enforceable constitutional right,” adding that ‘at par’ in the a992 circular must be interpreted broadly. The Court emphasised the inclusion of benefits, including Rule 10(1-B) of the 1965 rules.

Court Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court’s impugned judgment and held that a temporary status casual labourer is entitled to pensioner benefits on superannuation even if there is no formal order of regularisation. The Court ruled that since the appellant had completed more than 10 years after receiving the ‘at par’ status, they fulfilled the eligibility criteria for a superannuation pension. 

The Court directed the respondent to compute and release the pension and other consequential retirement benefits within three months, and arrears to be calculated only from three years and two months prior to the initial filing of the case.