NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has directed the govt to extend sixth pay commission benefits, including pensionary benefits, to personnel engaged to manage savings scheme deposits (SSD) of Special Frontier Force.
Six SSD personnel were recruited on a temporary basis in the 1970s. The UPA govt had denied service benefits and pension to these personnel when they retired, even though they had served for over 30 years.
The Armed Forces Tribunal had upheld the govt’s decision, following which the SSD personnel appealed in the SC.
SC terms denial of pension to SFF men ‘arbitrary’
Six SSD personnel, who were recruited on temporary basis in 1970s, were receiving travel allowance, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, special security allowance, gratuity, bonus, winter allowance and high-altitude allowance along with salary as per fourth and fifth pay commissions.
However, when the sixth pay commission was implemented for SFF personnel, these SSD personnel were not given any allowance and instead paid a consolidated Rs 3,000 per month. When they retired after serving SFF for more than 30 years, they demanded pension as per sixth pay commission. But their representation was rejected by the govt in 2012.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Meha, in a 30-page analysis of the SSD employees’ case, found that the govt had consistently treated them as regular employees. “The mere classification of employees as ‘temporary’ or ‘permanent’ is not merely a matter of nomenclature but carries significant legal implications, particularly in terms of the service benefits and protections,” it said.
Justice Mehta said, “In the present case, the totality of circumstances indicates that despite their formal classification as temporary employees, appellants’ employment bears substantial hallmarks of regular govt service. “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 relation with govt. This approach runs the risk of creating a class of employees who, despite serving the govt for decades in a manner indistinguishable from regular employees, are deprived of the benefits and protections typically accorded to govt servants.”
Justices Kohli and Mehta said, “We are of the opinion that the denial of pensionary benefits to the appellants is not tenable or justifiable in the eyes of law as the same is arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
Six SSD personnel were recruited on a temporary basis in the 1970s. The UPA govt had denied service benefits and pension to these personnel when they retired, even though they had served for over 30 years.
The Armed Forces Tribunal had upheld the govt’s decision, following which the SSD personnel appealed in the SC.
SC terms denial of pension to SFF men ‘arbitrary’
Six SSD personnel, who were recruited on temporary basis in 1970s, were receiving travel allowance, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, special security allowance, gratuity, bonus, winter allowance and high-altitude allowance along with salary as per fourth and fifth pay commissions.
However, when the sixth pay commission was implemented for SFF personnel, these SSD personnel were not given any allowance and instead paid a consolidated Rs 3,000 per month. When they retired after serving SFF for more than 30 years, they demanded pension as per sixth pay commission. But their representation was rejected by the govt in 2012.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Meha, in a 30-page analysis of the SSD employees’ case, found that the govt had consistently treated them as regular employees. “The mere classification of employees as ‘temporary’ or ‘permanent’ is not merely a matter of nomenclature but carries significant legal implications, particularly in terms of the service benefits and protections,” it said.
Justice Mehta said, “In the present case, the totality of circumstances indicates that despite their formal classification as temporary employees, appellants’ employment bears substantial hallmarks of regular govt service. “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 relation with govt. This approach runs the risk of creating a class of employees who, despite serving the govt for decades in a manner indistinguishable from regular employees, are deprived of the benefits and protections typically accorded to govt servants.”
Justices Kohli and Mehta said, “We are of the opinion that the denial of pensionary benefits to the appellants is not tenable or justifiable in the eyes of law as the same is arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
#grants #pension #SFF #temp #employees #served #years #India #News #Times #India
