Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court observed that employees performing duties like regular government staff should not be denied pensionary benefits solely due to their temporary status. Division Bench criticized the denial of such benefits which highlights that long-serving employees performing equivalent roles deserve the same protections and benefits as permanent government employees. 

• Justices Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta held in the matter of Rajkaran Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.      

What was the Background of Rajkaran Singh & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors? 

• The appellants were appointed to manage the Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund of the Special Frontier Force (SFF) in various positions such as Junior Accountant, Accountant, Upper Division Clerk, and Lower Division Clerk. 
  • The SSD Fund is a welfare initiative funded through personal contributions of SFF troops from their salaries. 
• The appellants received various allowances and benefits along with their salary as per the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commissions (CPC). 
• On 1^st January 2006, the Union of India implemented the 6th Central Pay Commission for all government employees of the SFF. 
• However, these 6th CPC benefits were not extended to the appellants (SSD employees). Instead, they were given an ad-hoc amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 
• The appellants made representations to the Union Government seeking extension of 6th CPC benefits, which were rejected. 
• Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellants filed applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking extension of 6th CPC benefits. 
• The CAT dismissed their applications, holding that they were not employed in government service and that their services were not statutory in nature. 
• The appellants challenged the CAT's decision before the High Court, which affirmed the CAT's order. 
• Following the High Court's dismissal, the appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. 
• The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellants, despite being classified as temporary employees of a scheme managed by contributory pooling of funds, could claim entitlement to pensionary benefits in accordance with the 6th CPC. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court examined the issue under Article 12 of the Constitution, considering whether the Special Security Deposit (SSD) Fund managed by the appellants could be regarded as an instrumentality of the State. 
• The Court observed that the appellants' appointment on regular pay scales indicated a formalized employee-employer relationship akin to permanent government employees. 
• The Court noted the presence of governmental control over the appellants' employment terms, evidenced by increments and promotions comparable to other government employees. 
• The Court recognized that the provision of leave, Assured Career Progression (ACP), and other benefits reinforced the similarity between the appellants' employment conditions and those of regular government employees. 
• The Court held that the mere classification of employees as 'temporary' or 'permanent' is not merely nomenclature but carries significant legal implications in terms of service benefits and protections. 
• The Court concluded that the denial of pensionary benefits to the appellants was not tenable or justifiable in law, deeming it arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India,1950. 

What were the Cases Referred in Rajkaran Singh & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors? 

• Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 
  • The Court applied the tests laid down in to determine whether the entity in question could be considered an instrumentality or agency of the Government under Article 12. 
  • Upon application of these principles in present case, the Court found compelling evidence establishing that the appellants met the characteristics of regular government servants. 
• Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India (2024)   
  • The Court observed that the essence of employment cannot be determined solely by initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. 

What is State under Indian Constitution? 

• Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines State. 
• It provides that the State will includes the Government and Parliament of India, as well as the Government and Legislature of each state within India. 
• The term also includes all local authorities and other authorities within Indian territory or under the control of the Government of India. 
• "State" has been interpreted broadly by the courts to include not just traditional government bodies, but also agencies and instrumentalities of the government that perform public functions or are under pervasive government control. 
• In Rati Lal v. State of Bombay (1952), it was determined that the judiciary is not considered "State" for Article 12.  
  • However, in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) and N.S. Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966), it was noted that the judiciary is regarded as "State" when it exercises its rule-making authority, but it is not considered "State" when performing its judicial functions. 

What is Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)? 

About :

• CAT is a specialized judicial body established under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to adjudicate disputes related to recruitment and service conditions of public servants. 
• It has jurisdiction over service matters of employees of the Union government and other authorities under central government control. 
• The tribunal comprises a chairman (a sitting or retired High Court Judge) and both Administrative and Judicial Members, chosen for their expertise in relevant areas. 
• CAT operates through 17 regular Benches and 21 Circuit Benches across India, aiming to provide speedy and cost-effective justice to aggrieved public servants. 
• While not bound by Civil Procedure Code, CAT adheres to principles of natural justice in its proceedings and possesses contempt powers equivalent to a High Court. 
• The tribunal's independence is safeguarded by providing its Chairman and Members with service conditions comparable to High Court Judges. 
• Appeals against CAT orders can be made to the respective High Court via writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 

Legal Provision:

• Establishment of Administrative Tribunals ( Section 4) 
  • The Act provides for the establishment of the following Administrative Tribunals: 
    • Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by the Central Government 
    • State Administrative Tribunals by State Governments 
    • Joint Administrative Tribunals for two or more States 
  • The Central Government may apply provisions to local or other authorities and corporations owned/controlled by the Government. 
• Composition and Appointment (Section 5-6) 
  • Each Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and other Judicial and Administrative Members as deemed fit by the appropriate Government. 
  • The Chairman must be or have been a Judge of a High Court. 
  • Administrative Members must have held the post of Secretary to Government of India or equivalent for at least 2 years. 
  • Judicial Members must be or be qualified to be a Judge of a High Court or have been a Secretary in the Legal Affairs Department for at least 2 years. 
  • The Chairman and Members are appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and Governor of concerned State(s). 
• Jurisdiction and Powers (Chapter III) 
  • The CAT has jurisdiction over: (Section 14) 
    • Recruitment and service matters concerning civil services/posts under the Union 
    • Service matters of All India Service officers 
    • Service matters of civilian defense employees 
  • State Administrative Tribunals have jurisdiction over: (Section 15) 
    • Recruitment and service matters concerning civil services/posts under the State 
    • Service matters of employees of State-controlled local authorities and corporations 
  • Tribunals have the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for: (Section 22) 
    • Summoning and enforcing attendance of persons 
    • Requiring discovery and production of documents 
    • Receiving evidence on affidavits 
    • Issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents 
    • Reviewing decisions 
    • Any other matter prescribed 
• Procedure and Appeals (Chapter IV, Section 19- section 27) 
  • Applications to be made within 1 year of the order causing grievance. 
  • Tribunals not bound by procedure in Civil Procedure Code but guided by principles of natural justice. 
  • Tribunals decide matters expeditiously, ordinarily on documents and written representations. 
  • Orders of Tribunals deemed to be executable as a decree of civil court. 
  • Appeals against orders of Tribunals lie to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
• Miscellaneous Provisions (Chapter V, Section 28- 37) 
  • Proceedings before Tribunals deemed to be judicial proceedings. 
  • Members and staff of Tribunals deemed to be public servants. 
  • Act to have overriding effect over other laws. 
  • Central Government empowered to make rules for carrying out provisions of the Act. 
  • Appropriate Government empowered to make rules on administrative matters of Tribunals.