The Supreme Court granted the benefits of 6th Central Pay Commission including pensionary benefits to the persons who for over three decades managed the Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund of the Special Frontier Force (SFF). “We are of the opinion that the denial of pensionary benefits to the appellants is not tenable or justifiable in the eyes of law as the same is arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court extended the benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission, including pensionary benefits, to individuals who have managed the Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund of the Special Frontier Force (SFF) for over three decades.
A bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the Centre’s argument that the recruitment, selection, and promotion processes for SSD Fund employees were not aligned with those of regular government employees.
The Court found this reasoning inadequate, stating that it failed to consider the substantive nature of the appellants’ employment over an extended period of thirty years.
In its reasoning, the Court highlighted that the totality of circumstances indicated that, despite being formally classified as temporary employees, the appellants’ employment bore significant characteristics of regular government service.
The Court stated-
“The denial of pensionary benefits solely on the basis of their temporary status, without due consideration of these factors, appears to be an oversimplification of their employment relationship with the government. This approach runs the risk of creating a class of employees who, despite serving the government for decades in a manner indistinguishable from regular employees, are deprived of the benefits and protections typically accorded to government servants.”
This judgment was delivered in response to an appeal challenging a Delhi High Court verdict, which had upheld an October 2016 decision by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) regarding the SSD Fund employees. The appellants had been hired for various positions with running pay scales to manage the compulsory SSD Fund, a welfare initiative funded through personal contributions from the salaries of SFF troops.
Although the appellants received various allowances and benefits, including Traveling Allowance (TA), Dearness Allowance (DA), House Rent Allowance (HRA), Special Security Allowance (SSA), Gratuity, Bonus, Winter Allowance, and High-Altitude Allowance, they were denied the benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), which came into effect in January 2006.
This denial prompted them to seek redress in the Supreme Court after lower courts found that their work did not qualify as government service.
The Supreme Court noted that there was compelling evidence on record to establish that the appellants met the characteristics of regular government servants.
The Court emphasized-
“The use of government pay scales for the appellants suggests a level of integration into the government’s financial structure that goes beyond typical temporary employment. During the course of their service, the appellants received increments and promotions comparable to those of other government employees. This pattern of career progression mirrors that of regular government servants and suggests a deep and pervasive governmental control over their employment terms.”
Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the significance of the appellants’ duties, which involved maintaining accounts for the SSD Fund. It stated,
“The management of funds generated from the personal provident fund contributions of the entire SFF cadre is a critical function that has a direct bearing on the public interest and the effective operation of government services.”
The Court concluded that the appellants’ roles were akin to those of regular employees, thereby blurring the line between their status and that of regular government employees.
In its final ruling, the Court held,
“We are of the opinion that the denial of pensionary benefits to the appellants is not tenable or justifiable in the eyes of law as the same is arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
However, the Court also clarified that the decision to extend these benefits to the appellants, whose batch was to be the last of their kind among SSD Fund temporary employees, should not serve as a precedent that could negatively impact the financial health of the SSD Fund.
This decision was made in the case of Rajkaran Singh and ors v Union of India and Ors.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Pensions
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
