In a significant ruling on August 22, 2024, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta, overturned a Delhi High Court judgment, extending pensionary and other service benefits under the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) to employees managing the Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund of the Special Frontier Force (SFF). The apex court termed the previous denial of these benefits as arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Background of the Case:
The case involved six appellantsโRajkaran Singh, Jagat Ram Joshi, Vishu Dutt Tripathi, H.K. Naithani, Shiv Kumar, and Surat Singhโwho were employed in various clerical and accounting positions to manage the SSD Fund, a welfare initiative funded through contributions from SFF troops. Despite their long service, ranging from 8 to 37 years, these employees were denied the benefits of the 6th CPC, which were implemented for other government employees, and were instead given an ad-hoc amount of Rs. 3,000 per month.
After their retirement, the appellants sought pensionary benefits under the 6th CPC. However, their claims were rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and later by the Delhi High Court, on the grounds that they were not government employees and thus not entitled to such benefits. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Whether SSD Fund employees, classified as temporary workers, are entitled to pensionary and other service benefits under the 6th CPC.
2. Whether the denial of such benefits violates the fundamental rights of these employees under the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling:
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the appellants’ long service records, the nature of their duties, and the financial and administrative integration of their roles within the governmental framework. The Court referred to landmark decisions in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, which outline the criteria for determining whether an entity or employee is part of government service.
The Court found that the appellants were on regular pay scales, received increments and promotions, and performed duties indistinguishable from those of regular government employees. The Court observed:
“The essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time.”
The Court concluded that the appellants had been effectively integrated into the governmental structure and were entitled to the benefits accorded to regular government employees.
Decision:
Setting aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court directed the Union of India and other respondents to extend the benefits of the 6th CPC, including pensionary benefits, to the appellants. The Court underscored that this ruling would not serve as a precedent for other similar cases, acknowledging the unique circumstances of the appellants’ employment.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Name: Rajkaran Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
– Case Number: Civil Appeal No. (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30976 of 2017)
– Bench: Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta
– Appellants: Rajkaran Singh, Jagat Ram Joshi, Vishu Dutt Tripathi, H.K. Naithani, Shiv Kumar, and Surat Singh
– Respondents: Union of India and Others
– Date of Judgment: August 22, 2024
– Lawyers:
– For the Appellants: Ms. Neha Rathi, Advocate
– For the Respondents: Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General
