Can't employ temporary staff inprecarious condition while seekingwork similar to regular employees: SC

PTI, June 1, 2026, New Delhi: Taking strong note of acute dissimilarity in perks and retirement benefits of temporary and regular employees, the Supreme Court on Monday said that the State, as an employer, cannot retain a workforce which does the same work as permanent staff but is denied corresponding benefits.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and A. G. Masih set aside an order of the Patna High Court that denied pensionary benefits to temporary employees who have served for decades in the Department of Posts. The top court said any classification resulting in denial of benefits to a class of employees who are otherwise similarly situated in terms of duties and responsibilities would fall foul of constitutional ethos.

The bench said the court has taken a consistent judicial approach that long-serving employees, whether casual or temporary, particularly those who have been conferred recognised status, cannot be denied corresponding benefits including social security and pensionary benefits. “The 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,” it said.

The bench directed the Centre to compute and release within three months the pensionary and consequential retiral benefits payable to a group of former employees or legal representatives of employees who had rendered long years of service under the Department of Posts as casual labourers (Night Guards). It said that in case of default, interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of accrual till disbursement shall be payable.

The bench noted that despite conferment of temporary status and extension of benefits akin to Group ‘D’ employees, the former employees or their legal heirs were never formally regularised in service mainly due to administrative inaction on the part of the Department of Posts.

The court observed that the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 38, 39 and 43, cast a positive obligation upon the State to ensure social and economic justice, fair conditions of work, and a decent standard of life for labourers. Pension, it said, is not a gratuitous benefit but a facet of social welfare and economic justice.

The top court reiterated the concept of the State as a model employer, stating that the State cannot extract services of a permanent nature while denying corresponding benefits. It also observed that pension is not a bounty but a vested and enforceable constitutional right, referring to a 2013 verdict which held pension to be a hard-earned benefit and “property” under Article 300A of the Constitution.

The bench further said that pension cannot be taken away except by authority of law, and that a statutory right cannot be rendered illusory due to inaction of the employer. It also referred to the Department of Posts’ 1991 Scheme for integration of casual labourers within a structured service framework, aimed at progressive extension of benefits leading to regularisation.

It added that under the Scheme, casual labourers with temporary status were entitled to wages equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale of regular Group ‘D’ employees along with allowances, indicating movement towards assimilation into regular service conditions.

The court concluded that the High Court had erred in its interpretation of the Scheme and the circular dated 30 November 1992, and set aside the impugned judgments as unsustainable in law.