Grant of temporary status confers entitlement to pensionary benefits for long-serving employees.

The applicant, Banwari, was initially engaged as a Contingency Paid Chaukidar under Respondent No. 5 in 1993, with the approval of the competent appointing authority.

He was granted temporary status and was paid the minimum pay scale with allowances admissible to regular Group ‘D’ employees.

He retired on June 30, 2011, at the age of 60.

Subsequently, he submitted a representation on November 26, 2019, seeking post-retiral benefits, but no decision was communicated.

The records indicate that the applicant was initially appointed as a Contingent Paid Chaukidar in 1983.

By order dated July 17, 1991, from the Office of the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Pratapgarh Division, he, along with similarly placed persons, was accorded Temporary Status with effect from November 29, 1989.

This OA was filed on February 10, 2026.

Whether the applicant, having been granted temporary status and served for a long period, is entitled to pension and other post-retiral benefits, despite not having a formal regularization order.

Whether the claim for pensionary benefits filed in 2026 for a retirement in 2011 is barred by limitation.

Rule 154(a) of the Manual for Pay and Allowances of Officers of the Postal & Telecommunication Department.

Chowkidars, Sweepers, Malis, Khalassis working alongside regular employees should be brought onto regular establishment and treated as 'regular employees' even without a formal regularization order, as interpreted by the High Court in Union of India and others Vs. Shyam Lal Shukla, 2012(1) ADJ698 = 2011 AHC 175055 [DB].

The principles established by the Supreme Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) & Ors. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr., 1989 SCR Supl (2) 329, which approved the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status in Regularisation) Scheme" entitling casual labourers with temporary status to minimum pay scales and benefits comparable to regular Group 'D' employees.

Precedents from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad High Court (Union of India and others Vs. Shyam Lal Shukla and Chandi Lal Vs. U.O.I and Ors.), and the Supreme Court (dismissing SLPs against Shyam Lal Shukla and Chandi Lal judgments) which held that such employees are deemed regularized and entitled to pensionary benefits.

The High Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Heera Lal & Anrs., Writ (A) Petition No.10505/2023, emphasized that citizens who dedicated their productive life to the Union of India should not be denied benefits on "legal niceties and procedural technicalities."

The applicant was granted 'temporary status' effective November 29, 1989.

The respondent's counsel argued that he was merely a Contingency Paid employee, never regularized, and therefore not entitled to pension.

The court relied on Rule 154A of the Manual, which classifies such employees as 'regular employees' for benefits, regardless of a formal regularization order, as interpreted by the High Court in Shyam Lal Shukla.

The Supreme Court's approval of the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status in Regularisation) Scheme" in Jagrit Mazdoor Union also indicated that employees with temporary status for over three years are to be treated as having acquired regular status for all practical purposes, including retiral benefits.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's name was on the list of persons accorded temporary status with effect from November 29, 1989 and he retired on June 30, 2011.

The Tribunal further observed that similar cases, such as Shyam Lal Shukla and Chandi Lal, had been upheld by both the High Court and the Supreme Court, affirming the right of such employees to be treated as regular and receive pensionary benefits.

The High Court's recent dismissal of writ petitions in Union of India & Ors. vs. Heera Lal & Anrs. and Writ (A) No. 11709 of 2024 also reiterated that the length of service as contingency paid staff merits pensionary benefits, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 54252 of 2025 further solidified this position.

Regarding the delay, the Supreme Court in Chandi Lal had dismissed the SLP both on grounds of delay and merits, indicating that even with delay, the merits of such cases prevail.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant, having been granted 'temporary status' with effect from November 29, 1989, is to be treated as a 'regular employee' from that date and is therefore entitled to pensionary benefits after his superannuation on June 30, 2011.

The respondents are directed to ensure the payment of pension and other post-retiral benefits to the applicant, treating him as a regular appointee in Group ‘D’ employee, with all consequential benefits, within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Failure to comply will result in interest at 6% per annum until actual payment.

The respondents are further directed to ensure the regular monthly pension to the applicant.