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