RAJKARAN SINGH & ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

INTRODUCTION

Namely, the case is Rajkaran Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [2024 INSC 621], however, it specifically analyses the facets of employment with temporal consideration to argue which among the termed class of employees – the temporary – can demand pensionary benefits under timely CPC, particularly under the 6th CPC. WORKERS OF S.F.F. The appellants who served the Special Frontier Force (SFF) Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund for over thirty years and executed their duty like normal civil employees were not allowed pensionary benefits. The matter has also been raised about employment equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, provisions of the Constitution regarding protection under Article 16 and the definition of instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. These problems are solved in the judgement of the Supreme Court which does not rely on procedural classifications as well as on the concept of substantive equality.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants were managing the SSD Fund which was formed to address welfare shares from SFF personnel. Among them, employees were performing chiefly clerical and accounting tasks and who enjoyed conditions of employment similar to those afforded civil servants. The respondents were promoted, incremented, and given allowances similar to other ordinary employees throughout their three decades of service. However, their designation as casual employees due to the non-existence of recruitment rules restricted their demands for pensionary benefits under the 6th CPC. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court dismissed their petitions saying that they had never been formally employed by the government. That way, the appellants had to turn to the Supreme Court for legal assistance in combating what the appellants considered unlawful and prejudiced actions of the authorities.

ISSUES RAISED

1. F/PAYI – Whether the appellants who had rendered their service as temporary employees entitled to any pensionary benefits under the 6th CPC?
2. Whether pensionary benefits were Discriminated in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on equality and Non – Discrimination in Public Employment.
3. Whether or not the appellants arguing that their roles and responsibilities were equivalent to regular employees justified their equal treatment.
4. Where the SSD Fund was an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12, before which it was not and the Constitution imposed obligations on it.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT

The appellants requested the Court to equate their activities with those of ordinary civil servants executing their essential duties concerning the wellbeing of SFF staff. They told the court that their employment period covers several decades whereby they earned the pay scales, allowances, and benefits similar to ordinary employees including the Assured Career advancement programme. They argued that it was irrational to classify them as temporary employees which was a prejudice of their constitutional right under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of Kenya. They further argued that the SSD Fund is government-controlled, and an integral part of SFF which was an instrumentality of the State; thus, employees were eligible for pensionary benefits under the 6th CPC.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT

Union of India claimed that the appellants were never employees of the government and had never been appointed through normal standing procedure. They said that the SSD Fund was autonomous and the employees were not offered privileges like those for government employees. The respondents also pointed to views that they imagine how some organisations with temporary employees could be financially and administratively affected if they were to be given pensionary benefits. They alleged that the appellants agreed to the conditions of the engagements they signed, which did not include pensionary rights; and that to consider them for a pension will be to award them what was not agreed upon between them and the appellants.

JUDGEMENT

The court of appeal also partly agreed with the appellants and affirmed the decision holding that the denial of pensionary benefits was arbitrary and unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. On this, the Court observed that the appellants’ working conditions, wage scale, allowances, and long service were similar to the permanent employees. Described and used the instrumentality test as given in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981), thus concluding that SSD Fund was an article 12 instrumentality of the State. The Court stated that equality had to be provided for because of constitutional provisions on equality in the treatment of employees in equal positions. It directed the Union of India to Provide the benefit of the 6th CPC with pensionary rights in favour of the appellants.

ANALYSIS

The judgement is also an affirmation of the judiciary’s support of substantive equality in public employment, where attributes of the work to be done and the role of the employee, matter more than the formal categorizations. The fact that the Court relies on the instrumentality test proves that government-related companies and organisations should respect and protect the constitutional rights of the people. This decision underlines the fact that the employment policies must be given a non-discriminatory meaning and the employment conditions are known to exist. When the Court allowed pensionary benefits to the appellants as a group of long-serving employees with integral functions to perform the Court was hard sending signals to employers that such employees should be recognised and accorded the same treatment as other employees. The judgment also protects other employees who are in a similar position and asking for employment benefits they have not received from being dismissed without reasons.

CONCLUSION

The judgement also strengthens the judiciary’s stance on the Harvey principle that targets a substantive equality in public employment when the nature and work that the employee does are paramount than procedural categorizations. The use of the instrumentality test by the Court establishes the correctness that GLEs are accountable for the protection of constitutional provisions. Through employment policies, such a decision illustrates how policy should not be interpreted in a discriminated manner to read into reality employment conditions. The Court, therefore, took a condescending decision in emphasising that pensionary benefits should be extended to cover the appellants because they were long-serving employees transferring significant functions. The judgement also operates as a cheque against unfair dismissal of similarly situated employees and employment benefits equity.