Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 621
Cause Title: Rajkaran Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 30976 of 2017)
Judgment Date: August 22, 2024
Quorum/Bench: Hon'ble Justice Hima Kohli, and Hon'ble Justice Sandeep Mehta
Paragraph 27"Applying these principles to the case at hand, we find compelling evidence on record which establishes that the appellants meet the characteristics of regular government servants. Admittedly, the appellants were appointed on a regular pay scale. This factor strongly indicates a formalised employee-employer relationship akin to permanent government employees. In Ajay Hasia(supra), this Court observed that the nature of financial arrangements can indicate governmental character. 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."
Paragraph 31"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."
Appellant's submission
The appellants argued that despite being classified as temporary employees, they served for over three decades, received regular pay scales, increments, promotions, and benefits similar to permanent government employees, and thus should be entitled to 6th CPC benefits including pension.
Respondent's submission
The respondents contended that the appellants were hired temporarily to manage the SSD Fund, their recruitment process differed from regular government employees, and they were not subjected to probation or given confirmation letters as permanent employees.
Decision of the Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the respondents to extend the benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission, including pensionary benefits under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008, to the appellants on par with their peers in the Accounts Section of SFF HQ Estt. No. 22. The Court held that denying these benefits solely based on the appellants' temporary status, despite their long service and treatment equivalent to regular employees, was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Komentarze