Muster roll daily wager awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement is ineligible for pensionary benefits.

The appellant was employed as a daily wager (muster roll employee) from 1971 until his oral termination in 1992.

The Labour Court initially ordered his reinstatement, but upon challenge by the State in WPMS No. 1429 of 2012, the High Court substituted the reinstatement order with a direction to pay a one-time compensation of ₹3 lakh.

The appellant received this amount with interest on 29.03.2016.

Subsequently, the appellant claimed pensionary benefits, which were rejected by the Executive Engineer on 11.03.2020 on the grounds that the appellant lacked ten years of regular service.

A Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition (WPSS No. 604 of 2020), leading to this intra-court appeal.

1. Whether a daily wager/muster roll employee whose reinstatement was substituted by a one-time compensation is entitled to pensionary benefits under Government Order dated 01.07.1989.

2. Whether the appellant met the criteria of a "temporary Government servant" who retired upon superannuation to qualify for pension.

The court interpreted the Government Order dated 01.07.1989, which provides that a temporary Government servant may be entitled to a pension if they have worked in a temporary capacity for more than ten years but retire before their services are regularized.

The court also applied the principles of service law distinguishing "muster roll/daily wage" employment from "temporary" or "regular" status, and the finality of compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement.

The Court found that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions of the 1989 Government Order for two primary reasons. First, the appellant served as a muster roll employee on daily wages rather than as a "temporary employee". Second, the appellant did not reach the age of superannuation while in service; rather, his services were dispensed with in 1992.

Although the termination was later found illegal, the High Court’s previous order in WPMS No. 1429 of 2012 specifically disallowed reinstatement and instead granted ₹3 lakh as compensation in "full and final satisfaction of all his claims". Because the appellant accepted compensation in lieu of reinstatement, he could not be legally deemed to have continued in service until retirement. Consequently, the 1989 Order remained inapplicable.

The Special Appeal was dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld.