Temporary Status casual workers are entitled to GPF and Gratuity but not pension or compassionate appointment.

The applicant was the widow (now represented by legal heirs) of Late Jetha Ram, who served as a casual laborer and later as a Chowkidar with the CPWD from 1986 until his death in harness on 12.03.2009

He was granted "temporary status" on 01.09.1993 under the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Govt. of India 1993"

Despite serving for over 20 years, his services were never formally regularized against a permanent post

Following his death, the respondents issued a communication dated 10.09.2010 denying the family's claims for Gratuity, GPF, and compassionate appointment, stating no rules existed for such benefits for temporary status holders

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of certain clauses of the 1993 Scheme

1. Whether the 1993 Regularization Scheme is unconstitutional or violative of equality principles for not granting full benefits to temporary status holders

2. Whether the family of a deceased employee with temporary status is entitled to GPF contributions, Gratuity, and compassionate appointment

The court applied the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Govt. of India 1993," specifically Clause 5(v) and (vi), which treats temporary status holders at par with Group ‘D’ employees for limited purposes like GPF and advances, but requires formal regularization for full pensionary benefits

State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, establishing that temporary status does not equal automatic regularization

Jagrit Mazdoor Union v. MTNL (1990) SCC SUPL. 113 regarding the counting of 50% of temporary service for pension after regularization

The court also invoked the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

The Tribunal held that while temporary status holders are treated at par with Group 'D' employees for specific matters after three years of service, they do not automatically become part of the permanent establishment until selected against a vacant post

Since Jetha Ram was never regularized during his lifetime, his family could not claim family pension or compassionate appointment, as these require substantive appointment

The Tribunal rejected the challenge to the 1993 Scheme, noting it had been upheld in various judgments and that the employee had already availed benefits under it

However, the Tribunal found the denial of GPF and Gratuity legally unsustainable. It reasoned that since the department had already deducted GPF subscriptions from the deceased's salary, they could not legally withhold that amount. Similarly, the long tenure (over 20 years) necessitated the payment of Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, or applicable rules, making the respondent's blanket denial "irresponsible"

The Tribunal partly allowed the OA. It quashed the refusal to pay GPF and Gratuity. The respondents were directed to pay the GPF subscriptions made by Jetha Ram (with interest) and the Gratuity amount as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, within three months