The Supreme Court has clarified that a temporary status casual labourer in the Department of Posts, upon completion of three years of continuous service under temporary status, becomes entitled to the benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, and that such benefits necessarily include pensionary benefits available under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, read with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, subject to fulfilment of the qualifying service requirement.

The Court held that formal regularisation is not a condition precedent to such entitlement. Clause 6 of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991, which provides for counting 50% of temporary status service for retirement benefits after regularisation, was interpreted as conferring an additional advantage in cases of regularisation and not as extinguishing the underlying pension entitlement in its absence.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court answered the issue by holding that a temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even without regularisation, set aside the High Court’s judgments, and directed release of pensionary and consequential retiral benefits, with arrears limited to three years and two months preceding the filing of the original applications where applicable.

A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih examined the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 and the Departmental Circular dated Nov 30, 1992 as a beneficial framework intended to progressively integrate casual labourers into the structured service system and extend to them benefits associated with Group ‘D’ employees.

The Bench observed that, although conferment of temporary status did not automatically amount to regular appointment, the Scheme could not be read narrowly so as to defeat its object. In particular, the direction that, after three years of continuous service under temporary status, such labourers would be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees was held to signify parity in substantive service benefits.

The Bench emphasized that the expression “such as” in the circular made the listed benefits illustrative and not exhaustive, and therefore pensionary benefits could not be excluded merely because they were not set out in restrictive terms. It further noted that, while temporary status casual labourers may remain distinct in nomenclature from temporary government servants, once parity of benefits with temporary Group ‘D’ employees was consciously extended, the employer could not rely on nomenclature alone to deny pension flowing from that parity.

The Bench also reiterated that pension is not a bounty but a constitutional and statutory entitlement, and that denial on grounds of administrative inaction or financial burden is untenable. On delay, the Bench observed that pension constitutes a continuing cause of action, though arrears may be restricted in accordance with settled service law principles.

Briefly, the appeals arose from three writ petitions in which the Patna High Court had set aside orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal granting relief to the appellants, who were either former employees of the Department of Posts working as casual labourers (Night Guards) or legal representatives of such employees. The employees had rendered long, continuous service for several decades, were conferred temporary status with effect from Nov 29, 1989 under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991, and, after completing three years in that status, were treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees under the departmental circular dated Nov 30, 1992.

Despite this, they were never formally regularised before superannuation. Their claims for pensionary benefits and, in one case, family pension, were rejected by the authorities on the ground that formal regularisation as Group ‘D’ employees was a prerequisite for pension. The Tribunal allowed their claims, but the High Court reversed those orders, holding inter alia that the claims suffered from delay and laches and that pension was unavailable absent formal regularisation.

Appearances:

For Appellants: Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, AOR, for Appellants

For Respondents: Bijender Chahar, A.S.G., Rohit Khare, Adv., Vimla Sinha, Adv., Seema Bengani, Adv., Rajesh Kr. Singh, Adv., Jagdish Chandra, Adv., Mohan Prasad Gupta, Adv., Sushil Raaja, Adv., Amrish Kumar, AOR, Sudarshan Lamba, AOR