What Supreme Court said on denial of pensionary benefits to 'temporary' government employees

The Supreme Court recently 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) [Rajkaran Singh and ors v Union of India and Ors]..A bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta rejected the Centre's stand that the recruitment, selection and promotion processes for the SSD Fund employees did not follow the procedures used for regular employees.The Court reasoned that the argument fails to account for the substantive nature of their employment over an extended period of three decades.The totality of circumstances in the present case indicates that despite their formal classification as temporary employees, their employment bears substantial hallmarks of regular government service, the Court said."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," the top court said.The judgment was passed on an appeal challenging a Delhi High Court verdict that upheld an October 2016-decision of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in the case of SSD Fund employees.The appellants in the present had been hired for various positions on running pay scales to manage the compulsory SSD Fund which is a welfare initiative funded through the personal contributions of the SFF troops from their salaries. Though they were also paid Traveling Allowance (TA), Dearness Allowance (DA), House Rent Allowance (HRA), Special Security Allowance (SSA), Gratuity, Bonus, Winter Allowance, and High-Altitude Allowance, etc. along with salary as per the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commissions (CPC), they were denied the benefits of the 6th CPC applicable from January 2006.They moved the Supreme Court after the fora below found that their work did not qualify as government service..The top court said there was compelling evidence on record to establish that the appellants met the characteristics of regular government servants."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," the Court said.It also said that the appellants' charter of duties involving the maintenance of accounts for the SSD Fund, can be considered as an assignment of public importance closely related to governmental functions."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 he appellants performed duties similar to those of regular employees and said such similarity further blurs the line between their status and that of regular government employees."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.However it also clarified that the direction to extend the benefits to the appellants, whose batch was to be the last in their genre of SSD Fund temporary employee, shall not form a precedent so as to have a detrimental effect on the financial health of the SSD Fund..Advocate Neha Rathi appeared for the appellants. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appeared for the Union government..[Read Judgment]