In a recent decision, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta expounded that, "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.
The bench added, "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 issue came to light from a dispute involving the question whether temporary employees were entitled to benefits under the 6th Central Pay Commission (Hereinafter, ‘CPC’) recommendations.
Brief Facts
The Appellants herein were temporary employees who had served for an long period of time and contended that despite they had a temporary status, their service duties and conditions were on par with those of regular/permanent government employees. They sought to claim pension benefits in accordance with the recommendations of the 6th CPC, which commonly applies to permanent/regular employees.
Issue
The focal issue to determined was whether the Appellants herein, despite being regarded as temporary employees, could claim pension benefits under the 6th CPC. This issue required the court to determine if their substantive employment conditions justified eligibility for these benefits, regardless of their formal status.
Contentions of Appellant
The appellants argued that their duties, roles, responsibilities, and service conditions were similar to those of those with regular employment status. They contended that their long-term service and nature of responsibilities should permit and thus entitle them to benefits as per the recommendations under the 6th CPC, asserting that their temporary official classification status should not preclude them from such entitlements.
Contentions of Respondent
The Respondents, namely the government authorities, asserted that the Appellants temporary employment status prevented them from receiving benefits under the 6th CPC.
Observation of the Court
After appraising the circumstances in light of pragmatic realities, the Supreme Court observed through the lens of both employment conditions and actual job functions. The court observed that albeit, the Appellants were officially regarded and classified as temporary but their roles and service conditions closely mirrored as those under regular employment. In a nutshell, the court after appraising both sides regarded substantive employment conditions to hold primacy over formal designations.
Regarding the above, the court observed, “As held in Vinod Kumar(supra), "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” … “This Court fully associates with this principle and finds it wholly applicable in the present case, especially in light of the administrative orders and Board proceedings referred to supra that have consistently treated the appellants as equivalent to regular government employees. The mere classification of employees as 'temporary' or 'permanent' is not merely a matter of nomenclature 29 but carries significant legal implications, particularly in terms of service benefits and protections.” …
SC Bench added, “In the present case, the totality of circumstances indicates that despite their formal classification as temporary employees, the appellants' employment bears substantial hallmarks of regular government service. 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.” …
Apex Court Bench further added, “Thus, we are of the opinion that the denial of pensionary benefits to the appellants is not tenable or justifiable in the eyes of the law as the same is arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
Decision:
Applying the above observations to facts, the court concluded that “The respondents are directed to extend the benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission including the pensionary benefits under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008, to the appellants herein in the same terms as are being afforded to their peers in the Accounts Section of SFF HQ Estt. No. 22.”
Case Title: Rajkaran Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: SLP(Civil) No(s). 30976 of 2017
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date: August 22, 2024
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com, Click Here
Picture Source :
