Summary: Whether the appellants herein, despite being classified as temporary employees of a scheme managed by contributory pooling of funds, can claim entitlement to pensionary benefits in accordance with the 6th CPC? SC Held: 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 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- Respondents directed to extend the benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission including the pensionary benefits under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 to the appellants herein.
Constitution Of India,1950; Article 12- Whether an entity can be considered an instrumentality or agency of the Government, and thus an “authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. These tests include but are not limited to ; 1. Extent of financial support from the government; 2. Deep and pervasive control of the government; 3. Functions performed are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions; 4. Entity enjoys monopoly status conferred or protected by the State; 5. The government department has been transferred to the entity – Neither all the tests are required to be answered in positive nor a positive answer to one or two tests would suffice. It will depend upon a combination of one or more of the relevant factors depending upon the essentiality and overwhelming nature of such factors in identifying the real source of governing power, if need be by removing the mask or piercing the veil disguising the entity concerned- Referred to Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722 and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111. (Para 24-26)
Employment – The essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time- Referred to Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1533. (Para 31)