Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that casual employees with temporary status who have been working for a long time can qualify for a pension after they retire even if the government never officially made their employment permanent.This judgement came from a case filed by temporary status workers at a post office in Bihar. They received benefits similar to other Group D employees, but not through any formal notification, which meant that when they retired, they didn't receive any pension benefits, nor did their families get a family pension.These workers were hired between 1971 and 1981 as casual staff and remained as such for several decades. Following a Supreme Court ruling in the Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (1990), their employer, the Department of Posts, created a special scheme for temporary employees.Under this scheme, those who had completed three years of continuous service as casual employees were granted temporary status with retrospective effect from November 29, 1989. On November 30, 1992, the Department of Post issued a circular stating that casual labourers who completed three years of continuous service under temporary status would be treated the same as temporary Group 'D' employees and would be eligible for the same benefits.Also read: Temporary employee to be paid at par with regular worker: SCSo, these workers got the same benefits as Group D employees, but were never formally regularised and subsequently retired without getting regularised. That's where the issue arose. After retirement, these employees were denied pension and other benefits including family pension. The post office said that a formal regularisation will be needed for this.The Central Administrative Tribunal supported the employees' claims and ordered that their pension benefits be considered, but the Patna High Court later set aside the Tribunal's orders, holding that pension could not be granted in the absence of regularisation, as reported by Verdictum.The Supreme Court stated that nomenclature or administrative inaction can't take away the pension and other benefits of these temporary status employees.The temporary employees who had filed this case argued that temporary government servants are not excluded from the purview of pension and to support this contention, they cited the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 ["CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965"]. The temporary employees argued that a temporary government servant who retires after attaining the age of superannuation and has served for at least 10 years, should be governed by the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and should receive a superannuation pension, gratuity, and family pension. Additionally, the temporary employees referred to a government office memorandum (No. 2/4/87-PIC dated April 14, 1987) issued under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which clarifies that even temporary government servants, upon rendering the requisite period of service, are to be brought within the purview of pensionary benefits, and that the need to hold a substantive pensionable post is waived in these situations.Therefore, the temporary employees argued that the statutory framework does not exclude temporary employees from pensionary benefits and any other interpretation would be incorrect.Also read: Contractual staff can’t claim regular status as a right, says SC; long-serving workers may get relief but not set a precedentSupreme Court orderThe Supreme Court said that the scheme which was formed by the Department of Posts was made as a beneficial framework which aimed to integrate casual workers into formal regular service by giving them similar benefits as those given to Group D employees.The Supreme Court said that this scheme contemplates extension of benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees after completion of the prescribed period of service under temporary status.The Supreme Court also said that the utilisation of the words 'such as' clearly indicates that the benefits enumerated there are illustrative and neither restrictive nor exhaustive.So on this ground, the Supreme Court rejected the Government of India's contentions that pension and its benefits can only be given after formal regularisation, reported Verdictum.The Supreme Court said that the entitlement to pensionary benefits of temporary status employees who have completed the prescribed period of service, flows independently from the Scheme and the circular dated November 30, 1992.The Supreme Court also distinguished between casual labourers, temporary status casual labourers, temporary government servants and regular government servants. The Supreme Court said that the distinction that remains relates to nomenclature, formal status and mode of regularisation, but not to the nature of extended benefits.The Supreme Court further held that Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 specifically recognised the entitlement of temporary government servants to superannuation pension, gratuity and family pension upon completion of 10 years' of service. Thus the Supreme Court said that pension is not a matter of grace dependent upon the financial convenience of the employer, but a deferred wage earned through long years of service." The Supreme Court also said that emphasis must be on ensuring that the state does not retain such employees in a precarious condition while extracting services identical to those performed by regular employees.The Supreme Court also reiterated that a pension constitutes a constitutional right and property protected under Article 300A of the Constitution. Order:The Supreme Court held that temporary status casual employees who had completed three years of continuous service and were extended benefits similar to temporary Group 'D' employees are entitled to pensionary benefits under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, even in the absence of formal regularisation. The Supreme Court directed the authorities to calculate and distribute the pension and related retiral benefits to these employees within three months. If they failed to do so, an interest of 6% per annum will be due from the date it was due until it is paid out.