LONG-TERM SERVICE, DENIED BENEFITS: THE PENSION DILEMMA



A major legal dispute regarding pension benefits and pay adjustments under the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) of the workers connected to the Special Frontliner’s Force (SFF) Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) which is highlighted in the case of Rajkaran Singh and Ors. V. Union Of India. After retiring, the appellants who held jobs as junior accountants, upper division clerks, and lower division clerks, wanted to be recognized as regular government workers in order to receive pension benefits and pay scale adjustments that are normally reserved for such positions. They filed an appeal with the Supreme Court after the Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court rejected their claims.

The Supreme Court in its ruling held important observations on the appellant’s job status. The appellants were not selected via the conventional governmental hiring process, the court stressed, indicating they were not normal governmental workers. The fact that they were not eligible for benefits under the 6th CPC was largely determined by this disparity. The appellants were not granted government employee status or the perks that go along with it because of their work in the SSD fund, a welfare program funded by the donation of SFF employees.

The decision rendered by the Supreme Court upheld the fundamental idea that the pension benefits associated with CPC are only available to those who are appointed through official government channels and who meet the applicable service requirements. Because the appellants could not provide evidence to support their assertions, the court upheld the lower courts’ rulings, preserving the distinction between government employees who are part of normal government employment and those who work for special welfare programs such as the SSD Fund.

“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 bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta said[1]

BACKGROUND FACTS-

 The appellants were initially paid in accordance with the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commissions (CPC) and held different posts within the Special Frontier Force's (SFF) Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund. On January 1, 2006, the 6th CPC was established, however they were not eligible for its advantages. They were paid ₹3,000 per month in fixed ad hoc payments instead of the updated pay rates. The appellants applied for pension benefits under the 6th CPC after they retired, but the Union of India denied their requests, citing the fact that they were not considered regular government employees and as such were not eligible for benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

CONCLUSION-

Finally, the appellants were declared ineligible for benefits under the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and associated pensionary benefits by the Supreme Court, which affirmed the rulings of the subordinate courts and tribunals. Based on their employment under the Special Frontier Force's Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund, the appellants were not ordinary government workers and, thus, the Court determined that they were not qualified for the benefits mentioned in the 6th CPC. This ruling affirmed the legal precept that a person's job status as determined by government service regulations determines their eligibility for certain benefits. This particular example underscores the significance of official occupational categorization in ascertaining an individual's eligibility for public assistance.

 

 

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post