Patna High Court
IndiaversusIndirawati Devi
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
Employees who were granted temporary status before 01‑01‑2004 are covered by the old pension scheme and are entitled to pension and family pension irrespective of regularisation.
Summary
The petition filed by the Union of India challenged a Patna High Court order that had set aside earlier orders denying family pension to Indirawati Devi, wife of the deceased employee of the Department of Posts. The husband had been a casual labourer from 1982, received temporary status in 2001, and was appointed as Multi‑Tasking Staff in March 2016 but died before assuming the post. The core issue was whether a temporary‑status employee, who was regularised after the 1‑Jan‑2004 cut‑off, is entitled to pension under the old statutory pension scheme or the new scheme, and whether regularisation is a prerequisite for pension rights. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhikhani Devi (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055) and several High Court precedents, holding that employees who obtained temporary status before 1‑Jan‑2004 are covered by the old pension scheme and are entitled to pension and family pension even without regularisation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as having no merit. The court directed that the respondent is entitled to pension benefits under the old scheme.
Issues considered
- Whether a casual labourer conferred temporary status before 01‑01‑2004 is entitled to pension and family pension under the old statutory pension scheme.
- Whether regularisation is a condition for entitlement to pensionary benefits for temporary‑status employees.
- Whether the Supreme Court judgment in Bhikhani Devi (2026) is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972
- Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 — s. Rule 10(1‑B), Rule 10(2), Rule 13, Rule 14
- Office Memorandum dated 01.04.1968
Subjects
- pension
- family pension
- temporary status
- old pension scheme
- new pension scheme
- Central Civil Services Rules
- superannuation
- regularisation
- writ petition
- Department of Posts
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3460 of 2025
======================================================
1. The Union of India through the Secretary-cum-DG, Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna- 800001.
3. The Director Accounts (Postal), Exhibition Road, Patna-800001.
4. The Superintendent, RMS NB Division, Samastipur- 848101.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Indirawati Devi Wife of Late Amardeo Prasad, Resident of Village-Bhirha
Gopalpur, P.O. Tiriharpur, District Balia (Uttar Pradesh).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/UOI : Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal, Sr. CGC
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jayant Kumar Karn, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 16-06-2026
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
judgment dated 27.09.2024, passed in O.A. No.050/0003/2020
by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna bench,
Patna (hereinafter referred to the “Ld. CAT”) whereby and
whereunder the original application filed by the sole respondent
has been allowed and the impugned orders dated 11.11.2019 as
also the one dated 17.03.2016, so far as the same relates to not
inducting the deceased-employee in old Statutory Pension
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
2/15
Scheme, have been set aside and the deceased employee-
husband of the sole respondent has been held entitled for
pension, to be computed as per the findings arrived at in the said
judgment dated 27.09.2024. The petitioners herein, by the said
judgment dated 27.09.2024, have been further directed to settle
the pension/family pension and all other retiral benefits and pay
the arrears within a period of three months from the date of
production/receipt of the said order dated 27.09.2024 with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of entitlement
failing which the interest shall be paid at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of entitlement till final payment.
2. The facts of the present case lie in a narrow compass
inasmuch as the husband of the sole respondent, namely late
Amardeo Prasad was engaged as casual labour in RMS “NB”
Division, Samastipur in the year 1982 after being empaneled on
being sponsored by the employment exchange. The husband of
the sole respondent was conferred temporary status with effect
from 01.01.2001 vide Memo No.344 dated 14.02.2001, issued
by the Superintendent RMS “NB” Division, Samastipur,
whereupon he was extended all the benefits of temporary status
employee in terms of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.
Thereafter, upon recommendation being made by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
3/15
Departmental Promotional Committee in its meeting held on
14.03.2016, the Superintendent RMS “NB” Division,
Samastipur, vide Memo No.1236 dated 17.03.2016, had issued
appointment letter regarding appointment of the husband of the
sole respondent as Multi-Tasking Staff against the unfilled
vacancy of UR and OBC quota for the year 2015 and
consequently, he was appointed in MTS cadre in Pay Band of
Rs.5200-20200 (PB-1) with grade pay of Rs.1800 as also he was
directed to assume charge as MTS. Unfortunately, the husband
of the sole respondent died on 20.03.2016, as such he could not
assume the charge as MTS. The sole respondent, being
aggrieved by non-payment of family pension as well as other
retiral/death benefits of her husband, preferred an original
application bearing O.A. No. 92/2017, which was disposed of
by an order dated 15.04.2019, passed by the learned CAT,
whereby and whereunder, the respondent authorities were
directed to pass appropriate reasoned and a speaking order
taking into account the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High
Court, Tribunal and the department’s own circular dated
15.05.1991. This led to passing of the impugned order dated
11.11.2019, by the Superintendent RMS “NB” Division,
Samastipur whereby the claims of the sole respondent for grant
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
4/15
of family pension and death/ retiral benefits were rejected. This
led to the sole respondent filing the present original application
bearing O.A. No.050/0003/2020, wherein the learned CAT by
the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2024, after relying upon
several past precedents, not only that of the learned CAT but
also of various Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Apex
Court, has quashed the impugned orders dt. 11.11.2019 and
17.3.2016 so far as the same relates to not inducting the
deceased-employee in the old Statutory Pension Scheme and has
held the husband of the sole respondent to be entitled for
pension to be computed as per the findings given in paragraph
no.59 of the said judgment dated 27.09.2024, which is quoted
herein below:-
“59. So far as present case in hand is concerned,
husband of applicant working as Casual Labour from
year 1982 paid from Contingency Fund, temporary status
vide Order dated 14.02.2001 (Annexure A-2) appointed in
regular cadre of MTS in PB-1, GP Rs.1800/- vide Office
Order dated 17.03.2016 absorbed in regular employment.
Rules 13 & 14 read with OM dated 01.04.1968 entitles
applicant's husband vested right of 50% of period prior
to grant of temporary status to be counted for pensionary
benefits and followed by regular/absorption to reckon
50% of applicant's husband total service in temporary
status followed by regular appointment vide Order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
5/15
17.03.2016. Pensionary benefits are beneficial measures
and no one has control over death and husband of
applicant held to be superannuate on regular post of
MTS.”
3. It would be pertinent to point out here that the learned
CAT in the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2024 has also
referred to the case of one Bhikhani Devi, wherein though the
learned CAT vide order dated 27.03.2018 passed in O.A.
No.372 of 2017 had allowed the case of Bhikhani Devi,
however a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order
14.10.2019 passed in CWJC no. 15420 of 2019 (Union of India
Vs. Bhikhani Devi) had set aside the said order dated
27.03.2018 passed by the learned CAT. Nonetheless, in similar
facts and circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Meena Devi @ Meena
Kunwar (CWJC No.7760 of 2015) had vide judgment dated
08.12.2022 affirmed the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the
Ld. CAT in O.A. No.164 of 2008 and granted the benefits of
family pension arrears as per Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil
Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and Central Civil
Services Pension Rules, 1972, wherein also the employee died
as temporary employee without being regularized.
4. The aforesaid Bhikhani Devi and Ors. had then
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
6/15
approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP(C)
No.28802-28804 of 2019 (converted into Civil Appeals) and the
Hon’ble Apex Court, by a judgment dated 01.06.2026, reported
in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055, has been pleased to allow the
said appeal by holding that a temporary status casual labourer
would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even
in absence of regularization. It would be apposite to reproduce
paragraphs no. 75, 76 and 85 of the said judgment passed in the
case of Bhikhani Devi (supra), herein below:-
“75. From the above discussion what follows is that when
the statutory framework including CCS (Temporary
Service) Rules, 1965 is read in conjunction with the
Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992, the
inescapable conclusion which emerges is that a casual
labour, on being conferred the temporary status, upon
completion of three years of continuous service as
temporary status casual labourer becomes entitled to
benefits admissible to temporary Group D employees
which necessarily includes pensionary benefits available
under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service)
Rules, 1965 subject, of course, to fulfilling the eligibility
criteria provided therein. This right is not dependent on
regularisation. What is conceived is conferring of
additional benefit of previous service under the Scheme
as would be available to an employee on regularisation
apart from the benefits conferred under the rules
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
7/15
becoming applicable on this now acquired new status of a
regular employee.
76. The question as framed in para 32 above stands
answered as follows:
‘A temporary status casual labourer would be
entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation
even in the absence of regularisation.'
85. The Respondents are accordingly directed to compute
and release the pensionary and consequential retiral
benefits payable to the Appellants in accordance with law
within a period of three months from the date of this
judgment. In case of default, interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of accrual till disbursement shall be
payable to the appellants.”
5. Now coming back to the facts of the present case, we
find that the husband of the sole respondent was employed as a
casual labour in the year 1982, whereafter he was conferred
temporary status with effect from 01.01.2001 vide memo dated
14.02.2001 and then he had continued to work as a temporary
status casual labourer till his regular appointment in the MTS
cadre vide memo dated 17.03.2016, a post which he could not
join, on account of his death within a few days of issuance of
the said memo dated 17.03.2016. Thus, it is apparent that the
husband of the sole respondent had joined as temporary status
casual labourer much prior to coming into force of the new
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
8/15
pension scheme which is applicable to all such government
servants, who have joined on or after 01.01.2004.
6. At this juncture, we would also refer to a judgment dated
15.12.2015 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Mukti Prasad Yadav (CWJC
No.17204 of 2015), wherein in somewhat similar circumstances,
it has been held that such casual employees, who have acquired
temporary status much prior to 01.01.2004 and have been made
permanent thereafter, would be covered by the old pension
scheme. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraph no. 4 of the
said judgment rendered in the case of Mukti Prasad Yadav &
Ors (supra) herein below:-
“4 The Tribunal, noticing the Full Hench judgment as
well as the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in this
regard in favour of the employees, held that they would
be covered by the Old Pension Scheme. To us, the
problem is simple. The New Pension Scheme would apply
to persons coming in Government Service after 1-1-2004.
The applicants before the Tribunal were first casual
labourers, but with effect from 1989 they acquired the
temporary status or the status of a temporary employee of
the Government in the Department of Posts. After three
years of such continuous service, they were entitled to
certain benefits, which a permanent Group-D employee
gets. They were receiving the same, pending confirmation
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
9/15
in service as a permanent employee. Towards pensionary
benefits, G.P.F. deductions were made. Then came cut-off
date as 1-1-2004. In the meantime, the vacancies having
occurred in the year 2011, they were substantially
appointed as permanent employees. They were
regularized as permanent employees. To us, the answer
would be evident from the fact that they were already in
service prior to 1-1-2004, though in a temporary status.
To us, it appears that the meaning of the Scheme, which
puts the cut-off date as 1-1-2004 is that all those persons,
who have come in service after 1-1-2004 would be
covered by the New Pension Scheme. As noted and stated
above, the applicants before the Tribunal, the respondents
herein, were already in service, though in temporary
status prior to the cut-off date. To them. this cut-off date
would not apply, and consequently they would be deemed
to be in service on 1-1-2004 having been confirmed as
permanent employees in Group-D with effect from 2011.
Thus, we find no error in the judgment and order of the
Tribunal.”
7. We would also refer to a judgment dt. 13.02.2025, passed
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Union of
India & Ors. vs. Naina Devi (CWJC No. 9645 of 2024),
paragraph nos. 3 to 5 whereof are reproduced herein below:-
“3. Having regard to the service record of the deceased-
Rama Sah to the extent that initially he was appointment
on ad hoc basis in the year 1982 and continued to work
as such till 31.07.2000. Thereafter, on 01.08.2000, he had
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
10/15
status of temporary. The scheme of the postal department
for the purpose of regularisation of such of those
temporary status persons is quota earmarked to the
extent of 25% till 30.06.2018 and petitioner could not get
eligibility for the purpose of regularisation or entering
into the MTS cadre. Resultantly, he retired with tag of
temporary status on 30.06.2018.
4. It is to be noted that with temporary status he has
discharged the duties of the post w.e.f 01.08.2000 to
30.06.2018. In other words, for about 18 long years he
was holding the post on temporary basis. If the principle
laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka
and Ors. vs. Uma Devi and Ors. reported in (2006) 4
SCC 1 read with State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. M.L.
Kesari and Ors, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 and later
decision in the case of Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad decided on 31.01.2025 are taken into
consideration, in that event, deceased-Rama Sah is
entitled to have the benefit of regularisation or
appointment in MTS cadre as and when he had completed
10 years of service. In other words, he would be regular
holder of Government post. We have noticed in umpteen
cases Government instead of regular recruitment to
various post, posts are filled on temporary basis, such
procedure may be for few months depending upon
exigency and the same cannot continue for decade. It is
relevant to take note of Article 23 of Constitution and it
commence with heading as "RIGHT AGAINST
EXPLOITATION and it is in relation to prohibiton of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
11/15
traffic in human beings and forced labour. In the present
case, petitioners have resorted forced labour on the
deceased - Rama Sah insofar as extracting work from the
year 1982 till 30.06.2018, such practice is deprecated. In
this regard, the concerned authority are hereby directed
to pass a detailed speaking order insofar as regularizing
his services while taking note of the principle laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned
decisions. Thereafter, proceed to fix his pay in a
particular post and extend all monetary benefits to the
respondent. Further, from 01 July, 2018 till death of the
deceased-Rama Sah pension is required to be calculated
and disbursed in favour of the respondent legal heir.
Thereafter, respondent-Naina Devi is entitled to family
pension depending upon the pension fixation, family
pension is required to be fixed. On account of the
aforementioned exercise respondent is entitled to
monetary benefits, the same shall be calculated and
disbursed in favour of respondent-Naina Devi within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
5. The petitioners have not made out a case so as to
interfere with the CAT order dated 24.11.2023 passed in
O.A. No. 1109 of 2019.”
8. The Union of India and Ors. had then approached the
Hon’ble Apex Court, challenging the aforesaid order dated
13.02.2025, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the
case of Naina Devi (supra), however the special leave petition
bearing SLP(C) No.26670 of 2025, filed by the Union of India
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
12/15
& Ors. has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, by an
order dated 17.02.2026 on merits.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not
disputed the fact that now the law has been settled by the
Hon’ble Apex Court by a judgment dated 01.06.2026, rendered
in the case of Bhikhani Devi & etc. (supra) and the same would
govern all such cases as the present one, hence it is submitted
that there is nothing much to argue in the present case.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the sole
respondent has submitted that the present case is squarely
covered not only by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Bhikhani Devi (supra) but also by the
judgment dated 15.12.2015, passed by a coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Mukti Prasad Yadav (supra) and the
one dated 13.02.2025, passed in the case of Naina Devi (supra)
by a coordinate Bench of this Court, as affirmed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court vide order dated 17.02.2026 passed in SLP(C) No.
26670 of 2025 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Naina Devi).
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the materials available on record, we find that
the law with regard to the lis involved in the present case is no
longer res integra, inasmuch as the same has been set at rest by
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
13/15
the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Bhikhani Devi (supra), wherein it has been categorically held
that a casual labour, on being conferred temporary status, upon
completion of three years of continuous service as temporary
status casual labourer becomes entitled to benefits admissible to
temporary Group D employees which necessarily includes
pensionary benefits available under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 subject, of course, to fulfilling
the eligibility criteria provided therein and this right is not
dependent on regularization. Thus, a temporary status labourer
would be entitled to all retiral benefits on superannuation even
in the absence of regularization. However, in the present case
not only the husband of the sole respondent was conferred
temporary status and was working as temporary status casual
labourer with effect from 01.01.2001 but had also stood
regularized vide memo dated 17.03.2016, issued by the
Superintendent RMS “NB” Division, Samastipur, though
unfortunately he died prior to joining the said post of Multi-
Tasking Staff in MTS cadre, hence he/his wife would definitely
be entitled to all pensionary benefits.
12. Now coming to the issue concerning the entitlement of
the deceased employee and the sole respondent to pension/
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
14/15
family pension and all other retiral benefits, i.e. as to whether
the same would be computed as per the old pension scheme or
the new pension scheme, we find that the said issue has also
been set at rest by the aforesaid judgment dated 15.12.2015,
passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Mukti Prasad Yadav (supra) as also vide judgment dated
13.02.2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Naina Devi (supra), which has also been upheld by the
Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 17.02.2026, passed in
the case of Union of India vs. Naina Devi wherein it has been
held that if an employee is in service from a period prior to
01.01.2004, though having a temporary status, such an
employee would be covered under the old pension scheme and
those who have come in service after 01.01.2004 would be
covered by the new pension scheme.
13. In the present case, the husband of the respondent
herein was conferred temporary status with effect from
01.01.2001 vide memo dated 14.02.2001, hence admittedly
he was already in service, though having temporary status,
prior to the cut-off date, i.e. 01.01.2004. Thus, there is no
iota of doubt that he would stand covered under the old
pension scheme.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3460 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
15/15
14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and for the forgoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the
present writ petition, hence the same stands dismissed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Raj Kumar, J)
Kanchan./-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.06.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.