Introduction
In BHIKHANI DEVI AND ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA, 2026 INSC 612, the Supreme Court of India considered whether long-serving casual labourers of the Department of Posts, who had been granted “temporary status” but were never formally regularised, could be denied pensionary benefits on retirement.
The appellants were either retired casual labourers working as Night Guards or the widow/legal representative of such an employee. They had served for decades, were granted temporary status under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991, and were later treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees. However, the Union of India denied pension on the ground that they had never been formally regularised.
The central issue was: whether a temporary status casual labourer, without a formal order of regularisation, is entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
This was the foundational precedent behind the 1991 Scheme. The Supreme Court had directed that after three years of continuous service with temporary status, casual labourers should be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees and receive benefits admissible to such employees.
In the present case, the Court used this precedent to show that the Scheme and the 30.11.1992 circular were not narrow administrative concessions, but beneficial measures intended to integrate long-serving casual labourers into the structured service framework.
This case was relied on to address delay and laches. It recognises that pension is a recurring and continuing cause of action. Therefore, denial of pension cannot be justified merely because the employee or family member approached the court belatedly.
The Court applied this principle by granting pensionary entitlement while limiting arrears to a reasonable past period.
This precedent emphasised that where employees perform continuous duties similar to regular employees over a long period, the distinction between temporary and permanent employment may become artificial.
The Court used this reasoning to reject the Union’s attempt to rely only on the label “casual labourer” despite decades of service and parity in benefits.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that employees labelled as temporary or part-time cannot be denied benefits when their work is continuous, essential, and comparable to regular employment.
The present judgment follows the same approach: nomenclature cannot defeat substantive rights earned through long and continuous service.
This case held that where an employee has rendered long years of service and there is no justifiable reason for denying permanent status, it would be unjust to deny pension merely due to absence of formal regularisation.
The Court drew from this principle to conclude that administrative inaction in regularising employees cannot defeat pensionary rights.
This precedent established that pension is not a bounty but a vested right and “property” protected under Article 300A of the Constitution.
The Court relied on this to reject the argument that pension could be denied due to financial burden or absence of formal regularisation.
The Union of India relied on this case to argue that without regularisation, pension cannot be claimed. However, the Court did not accept that argument in the present factual and legal framework.
The distinguishing factor was the specific 1991 Scheme, the 30.11.1992 circular, and the express parity granted to temporary status casual labourers with temporary Group ‘D’ employees.
Legal Reasoning
The Court adopted a purposive and beneficial interpretation of the 1991 Scheme. It held that the Scheme was designed not to perpetuate insecurity, but to progressively assimilate long-serving casual labourers into the service framework.
Clause 6 of the Scheme stated that 50% of service under temporary status would count for retirement benefits after regularisation. The Union argued that this made regularisation a condition precedent for pension. The Court rejected this narrow reading. It held that Clause 6 provides an additional benefit after regularisation; it does not extinguish pensionary entitlement where regularisation never occurred due to administrative inaction.
The Court gave importance to the words “such as” in the circular dated 30.11.1992. Since the circular listed benefits “such as” leave, holidays, GPF, medical aid, LTC and others, the list was illustrative, not exhaustive. Therefore, pensionary benefits could not be excluded when temporary Group ‘D’ employees were otherwise entitled to them.
The Court also clarified that a temporary status casual labourer does not automatically become a temporary Government servant. However, after three years of temporary status, the worker is entitled to benefits at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees. The parity is in benefits, not necessarily in formal status.
Since Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 grants pension to temporary Government servants retiring after at least ten years’ service, the appellants, who had served far more than ten years after acquiring benefit parity, were entitled to pension.
Impact of the Judgment
-
Protection against perpetual temporariness: Government departments cannot indefinitely retain workers as temporary status casual labourers while denying them social security benefits.
-
Pension without formal regularisation: Where a scheme grants parity with temporary Group ‘D’ employees, pension may flow from that parity even if regularisation never occurred.
-
Beneficial interpretation of labour schemes: Administrative schemes for vulnerable workers must be interpreted in favour of social security and fairness.
-
Limits on arrears: Although pension is a continuing cause of action, arrears may be restricted to avoid stale monetary claims.
-
State as model employer: The judgment reinforces that the State must act fairly toward long-serving low-paid workers and cannot exploit nomenclature to deny benefits.
Complex Concepts Simplified
Temporary Status Casual Labourer
A casual labourer who, after satisfying conditions under the Scheme, is given a recognised temporary status. This status gives better pay and service benefits than ordinary daily-wage work.
Regularisation
Formal appointment of a temporary or casual worker into a regular government post. The Union argued pension depended on this. The Court held that, in this Scheme, pension could not be denied merely because regularisation was not formally completed.
Pension as a Continuing Cause of Action
Pension is payable periodically. Therefore, every non-payment gives rise to a fresh cause of action. Delay may limit arrears, but it does not destroy the right to pension itself.
Article 300A and Pension
Article 300A protects property rights. Since pension is treated as earned property, it cannot be taken away except by authority of law.
Beneficial Interpretation
When a scheme is meant to benefit workers, courts interpret it broadly to advance its purpose rather than narrowly to defeat the benefit.