Temporary status casual labourers completing three years’ service are entitled to pensionary benefits despite lack of formal regularisation.

The Appellants involve former casual labourers (Night Guards) or their legal representatives who served the Department of Posts for several decades.

Under the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991," the employees were conferred "temporary status" in 1992.

Pursuant to a 1992 circular, those completing three years of continuous temporary status were to be treated at par with "temporary Group ‘D’ employees".

Despite decades of service, the employees were never formally regularised.

Upon superannuation (and in one case, death), the Respondents denied pensionary benefits, asserting that formal regularisation was a mandatory prerequisite for pension eligibility.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (Patna) granted relief, but the High Court of Patna set aside those orders on grounds of delay, laches, and lack of formal regularisation.

1. Whether a temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a formal order of regularisation, is entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation.

The "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991," specifically Clauses 6 and 8 regarding the counting of service and parity with Group 'D' employees.

Rule 10(1-B) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, which entitles temporary government servants with ten years of service to superannuation pension and gratuity.

The precedent established in Jagrit Mazdoor Union v. MTNL, which mandated parity for temporary status workers.

State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, which affirmed that pension is a "property" right under Article 300A of the Constitution.

The 1991 Scheme and the 30.11.1992 circular were intended as progressive beneficial frameworks to align casual labourers with the regular establishment.

While Clause 6 of the Scheme mentions counting 50% service "after regularisation," this is an additional benefit and does not extinguish the independent pensionary entitlement that flows once an employee is treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees.

While "temporary status" workers are distinct in nomenclature, the Scheme grants them parity in "service benefits".

Since Rule 10(1-B) of the 1965 Rules grants pension to temporary government servants with 10 years of service, and the Appellants were treated at par with such employees for over 10 years after attaining the relevant status, they met the statutory eligibility criteria.

The Court dismissed the "delay and laches" argument, holding that pension is a recurring cause of action.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgments, restored the entitlement to pension, and directed the Respondents to release all pensionary and retiral benefits within three months (with arrears restricted to three years and two months preceding the filing of the Original Applications).