Casual Labor Cannot Count Toward Pension: Orissa High Court Rejects Claims for Full Service Benefits

Orissa High Court dismissed a writ petition by Aswini Kumar Mohapatra and 18 others challenging the denial of pension and retirement benefits by the State of Odisha. The petitioners, former casual laborers of the Arboriculture Organization, sought to have their entire period of service, including their time as casual laborers, counted for pension benefits. The court ruled against them, upholding the government’s decision that such casual service cannot be considered for retirement benefits.

The petitioners were engaged as casual laborers in the Arboriculture Organization under the General Administration and Public Grievance Department, starting from June 15, 1988. They were granted "temporary status" in 2012, and some were absorbed into regular service as Group-D employees (Sahakari Mali) in 2015. Upon retirement, they sought to count their casual labor period towards pension and gratuity, citing previous court rulings in similar cases involving work-charged employees. Their request was rejected by the government, leading to this petition.

The main legal issue was whether the period served by the petitioners as casual laborers could be counted for pension and other retirement benefits. The petitioners relied on previous cases where work-charged employees were granted such benefits, arguing that their situation was analogous.

The court noted that the Finance Department’s guidelines, under various resolutions, explicitly excluded casual laborers from counting their service period toward pension. The Resolution No. 31715/F dated September 4, 2012, clarified that for casual or daily wage laborers, the period served before absorption into regular service would not be counted for retirement benefits.

Justice Murahari Sri Raman emphasized that the petitioners' reliance on previous judgments involving work-charged employees was misplaced, as the petitioners had not been employed under similar conditions.

"The employment of the petitioners as casual laborers did not meet the criteria for pensionable service under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992. The court cannot extend benefits to categories of employees explicitly excluded from such entitlement under existing rules."

The court rejected the petitioners' plea for pension, reiterating that their service as casual laborers could not be counted for retirement benefits.

The court distinguished the petitioners' status from that of work-charged employees, noting that casual laborers were governed by different legal frameworks.

The government’s decision to deny pension and gratuity was upheld, as it followed the applicable laws and resolutions.

The court’s ruling has significant implications for casual laborers seeking retirement benefits. The judgment reinforces the principle that pension entitlements are strictly governed by the rules and resolutions in place, and casual laborers who are later absorbed into regular service cannot claim pension for their previous service unless explicitly provided for by law.

Date of Decision: October 3, 2024

 Aswini Kumar Mohapatra & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.