The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had denied benefits to the appellants, holding that it was not sustainable in the eyes of law. (PTI)
The court held that the refusal to grant pension benefits to these employees was not sustainable or justifiable in the eyes of law as it was arbitrary and violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court said that despite the official classification, temporary employees cannot be denied pension benefits if the employment bears substantial hallmarks of regular government service.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta directed the Union government to grant the benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission, including retirement benefits under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008, to a group of employees who have worked for over three decades after they were appointed. temporarily for the administration of the Deposit Fund in the Compulsory Savings Scheme of the Special Border Force in various functions.
The court held that the denial of pension benefits to these employees was not sustainable or justifiable in the eyes of the law as it was arbitrary and violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
“To deny pension benefits based solely on their temporary status, without considering these factors, appears to be an oversimplification of their employment relationship with the government. This approach risks creating a class of employees who, though they have served the government for decades in a manner indistinguishable from ordinary employees, are deprived of the benefits and protections ordinarily accorded to government servants,” the bench said.
After hearing Advocate Neha Rathi for the employees/complainants Rajkaran Singh and others and Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj for the Union government, the bench observed that the provisions regarding leave and other benefits including grant of assured career progression (ACP) have strengthened the similarity between the employment conditions of the appellants and those of regular state employees.
These benefits are usually associated with formalized long-term employment relationships in the government sector, he pointed out.
“Undisputedly, the appellants have served the SFF headquarters for over three decades. While length of service alone may not be determinative, it is a significant factor when considered in conjunction with other aspects of their employment. Such long service suggests a level of permanence and integration into the government structure that belies their classification as temporary employees,” the bench said.
The court also noted that the appellants performed duties similar to those of regular employees in the accounts section of the SFF headquarters.
“This similarity in job functions further blurs the line between plaintiffs’ status and that of regular government employees, suggesting that the distinction may be more formal than substantive. Extending the salient elements of the 4th and 5th CPC to the appellants further strengthens their plea of being employed in government positions,” the tribunal said.
The court also found the argument that the recruitment, selection and promotion processes for SSD Fund employees did not follow the same procedures used for regular employees as untenable because it failed to take into account the substantive nature of the plaintiffs’ long-term employment. time that preceded three decades.
Referring to Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Union of India (2024), the court pointed out: “This court said that the essence of employment and its rights cannot be determined only by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment. has evolved significantly over time”.
When asked whether an entity can be considered an instrumentality or agency of the government and therefore an “authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution, the court said the tests include but are not limited to; the extent of financial support from the government; deep and pervasive government control; performed functions of public importance and closely related to government functions; the entity enjoys monopoly status conferred or protected by the state; and the government department was transferred to the entity.
“Nor do all tests have to be positive, nor would a positive response to one or two tests be enough. It will depend on a combination of one or more relevant factors, depending on the essentiality and overwhelming nature of those factors in identifying the real source of governing power, if necessary by removing the mask or piercing the veil that disguises the entity in question.” said the bank.
On this issue, the court further referred to Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) and Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002).
In the present case, the court also said that since the batch of the appellants appeared to be the last of their kind of temporary employees under the SSD Fund and thus, clearly, the direction of extending the benefits of the 6th CPC and the RP Rules to the appellants should not constitute a precedent to have a negative effect on the financial health of the SSD Fund.
Accordingly, the apex court set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had denied the appellants benefits, holding that it was not sustainable in the eyes of law.
#employment #bears #hallmarks #regular #government #service #temporary #staff #denied #pension #News18