{"id":2293,"date":"2024-09-09T15:41:27","date_gmt":"2024-09-09T10:11:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=2293"},"modified":"2024-09-09T15:41:27","modified_gmt":"2024-09-09T10:11:27","slug":"sc-has-ruled-that-long-term-temporary-employees-entitled-to-equal-benefits-as-regular-staff","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/sc-has-ruled-that-long-term-temporary-employees-entitled-to-equal-benefits-as-regular-staff\/","title":{"rendered":"SC has ruled that long term temporary employees entitled to equal benefits as regular staff"},"content":{"rendered":"

RAJKARAN SINGH & ORS. [<\/strong>APPELLANT(S)]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>UNION OF INDIA & ORS.\u00a0 [<\/strong>RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h1>\n

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 30976 of 2017)<\/p>\n

(2JB, HIMA KOHLI and SANDEEP MEHTA JJ., Mehta, J<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant the benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission, including pensionary benefits, to individuals who managed the Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund of the Special Frontier Force (SFF) is a significant ruling. This case, Rajkaran Singh vs. Union of India<\/em> and Ors,<\/em> highlights the recognition and compensation of the efforts of these individuals who have served for over three decades. The appeal, filed by special leave, challenges the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated April 25, 2017, which dismissed the appellants’ writ petition and upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision from October 4, 2016. The Tribunal had rejected the appellants’ claim for the benefits of the Revised Pay Rules, 2008 (RP Rules), under the 6th Pay Commission, effective from January 1, 2006.<\/p>\n

Ms. Neha Rathi, counsel for the appellants, argued that denying pensionary and service benefits under the 6th CPC to the appellants, who managed the SSD Fund for over three decades, is arbitrary and violates their constitutional rights. She emphasized that the appellants were appointed with regular pay scales, received promotions, and performed duties similar to regular government employees. Despite being treated as government employees in other respects, the appellants were unjustly excluded from pension benefits, which were granted to their SFF counterparts, leading to a discriminatory and unconstitutional outcome. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG for the respondents, opposed the appellants’ claims, arguing that the SSD Fund, a welfare scheme funded solely by SFF personnel contributions, operates independently of the government. He emphasized that the appellants were hired temporarily without the benefits or status of regular Central government employees. Their salaries and any benefits were funded by the SSD Fund, not government resources. He asserted that the 6th CPC benefits do not apply to the appellants, as their employment terms were distinct and governed by the fund’s financial constraints. He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court ruled that the classification of employees as “temporary” or “permanent” should not solely determine their rights, especially when their employment has evolved to resemble regular government service. Despite being labeled as temporary, the appellants’ employment had significant characteristics of regular government service. Denying them pensionary benefits based on their temporary status was deemed arbitrary and a violation of their constitutional rights. The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed that the appellants be granted the benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission, including pensionary benefits, similar to their peers.<\/p>\n

The ruling underscores the importance of equitable treatment in terms of pay and pensionary benefits, ensuring that those who have dedicated a significant portion of their careers to such vital roles are duly recognized. The decision is likely to have broader implications for similar cases where employees or officers have been overlooked in terms of pay commission benefits.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RAJKARAN SINGH & ORS. [APPELLANT(S)]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.\u00a0 [RESPONDENT(S)] CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 30976 of 2017) (2JB, HIMA KOHLI and SANDEEP MEHTA JJ., Mehta, J.)   The Supreme Court’s decision to grant the benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission, including pensionary benefits, to individuals who […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2296,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2293","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2293","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2293"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2293\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2297,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2293\/revisions\/2297"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2296"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2293"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2293"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2293"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}