On August 22, the Supreme Court made a significant observation: employees who perform duties similar to those of regular government employees should not be denied the benefits given to government employees, even if they hold a temporary status. The court’s ruling focused on fairness and equal treatment for employees who have served the government for long periods.
Key Points from the Judgment
The ruling was made by a bench consisting of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta. They noted that denying pension benefits simply because of an employee’s temporary status oversimplifies their actual employment relationship with the government. The court emphasized that such an approach could unfairly create a class of employees who, despite serving the government for decades, are deprived of the benefits and protections typically provided to regular government servants.
The court stated that once it is established that an employee, not initially appointed on a regular basis, performs the same roles and responsibilities as a regular employee for a significant period and receives similar benefits, then such an employee should be treated as a regular employee.
Background of the Case
This ruling stemmed from a case involving employees who were denied the benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), which were provided to other regular government employees. The appellants were engaged in managing the Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund of the Special Frontier Force (SFF). They held various positions such as Junior Accountant, Accountant, Upper Division Clerk (UDC), and Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and were on running pay scales.
The SSD Fund is a welfare initiative funded by contributions from the salaries of SFF troops. The appellants, although temporary employees, received various allowances like Traveling Allowance, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, and others, similar to those provided under the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commissions.
When the 6th CPC was implemented on January 1, 2006, and made applicable to all government employees of the SFF, these benefits were not extended to the SSD employees. Instead, they received an ad-hoc amount of Rs. 3,000 per month. Displeased with this decision, the appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking extension of the 6th CPC benefits, but their application was rejected. The CAT’s decision was upheld by the High Court, prompting the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Considerations
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellants, classified as temporary employees, were entitled to pensionary benefits under the 6th CPC. The court considered whether the SSD, managed by the appellants, could be regarded as part of the state under Article 12 of the Constitution, making them eligible for these benefits.
Referring to the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, the Supreme Court used tests to determine if an entity could be considered an instrumentality or agency of the government. These tests examined factors such as the extent of government financial support, the level of government control, the public importance of functions performed, and whether the entity enjoyed a monopoly status conferred or protected by the state.
Court’s Findings and Conclusion
The court found strong evidence showing that the appellants were similar to regular government employees. The appellants received increments, promotions, and other benefits comparable to those of permanent employees, indicating a formal employment relationship. The court noted that the terms of leave, Assured Career Progression, and other benefits further reinforced the similarity between the appellants’ conditions and those of regular government employees.
Referring to a recent case (Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India), the court emphasized that the essence of employment cannot be determined solely by initial appointment terms but must consider how the employment evolved over time.
The Supreme Court concluded that denying pension benefits to the appellants was arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court clarified that this decision would not set a precedent affecting the financial health of the SSD Fund but would apply specifically to this case.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the government to extend the benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission, including pensionary benefits under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008, to the appellants. This decision ensures that employees who have long served in temporary roles will not be denied the benefits provided to their peers in similar positions.
