Temporary Status Casual Labourers in Post-2004 Service are Entitled to Pension Under Old Statutory Scheme

The respondent’s husband, Late Amardeo Prasad, was engaged as a casual labourer in 1982 and conferred "temporary status" effective 01.01.2001.

On 17.03.2016, he was appointed to the regular Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) cadre but died on 20.03.2016 before he could assume charge.

The Department rejected the respondent’s claim for family pension via an order dated 11.11.2019.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna, set aside the rejection, holding that the deceased was entitled to the Old Statutory Pension Scheme.

1. Whether a casual labourer conferred with temporary status is entitled to pensionary benefits even in the absence of formal regularization.

2. Whether an employee who acquired temporary status prior to 01.01.2004 but was regularized (or died just prior to joining a regular post) after that date is governed by the Old Pension Scheme or the New Pension Scheme.

The Court applied Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, which extend certain benefits to temporary employees.

The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. Bhikhani Devi (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055), which established that temporary status labourers are entitled to pensionary benefits upon three years of continuous service regardless of regularization.

The principle from Union of India v. Mukti Prasad Yadav (CWJC No. 17204 of 2015) and Union of India v. Naina Devi (CWJC No. 9645 of 2024), stating that the cut-off date of 01.01.2004 for the New Pension Scheme applies only to new entrants; those already in service (including temporary status) prior to that date remain under the Old Pension Scheme.

The Court reasoned that the deceased had acquired temporary status on 01.01.2001, which is significantly prior to the 01.01.2004 cut-off for the New Pension Scheme.

Applying Bhikhani Devi, the Court noted that his right to pension vested after three years of continuous service in temporary status and was not contingent upon his actual joining of the MTS post following his regular appointment in 2016.

Since he was already "in service" (albeit in a temporary capacity) before 2004, the Court determined that the Old Pension Scheme must apply.

The Court further observed that extracting work for decades without regularization constitutes "forced labour" and exploitation under Article 23 of the Constitution.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the CAT’s judgment. The respondent is entitled to the settlement of family pension, retiral benefits, and arrears with interest (8% per annum, increasing to 9% if delayed beyond three months) as directed by the CAT.