NDLI: Rajkaran Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Special Frontier Force (SFF) “Authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India Revised Pay Scale Rules. Maintenance of accounts for SSD Fund 4th 5th 6th Central Pay Commissions Employee-employer relationships Temporary employees Pensionary benefits Regular employees Regular government servants Regular government employees Pensionary benefits denied Classified as temporary employees Formal classification as temporary employees Duties similar to regular employees Instrumentality or agency of the Government Temporary status Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India, Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 (0 of 2008)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Service Law – Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 – Constitution of India – Article 12, 14, 16 – “authority” under Article 12 – Claim for pensionary benefits under the 6th CPC, by the appellants- Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) employees appointed as Junior Accountant, Accountant, UDC, LDC on running pay scales to manage the Compulsory SSD Fund of the Special Frontier Force (SFF) – Denied – Duties of the appellants, if were similar to those of regular employees in the Accounts Section of SFF HQ Estt.No.22 and thus, were they entitled to the pensionary benefits under the 6 th CPC and denial thereof was unjustified:Held: Yes – Appellants’ employment bears substantial hallmarks of regular government service, despite their formal classification as temporary employees – Appellants were admittedly appointed on a regular pay scale indicating a formalised employee- employer relationship akin to permanent government employee – Appellants’ career paths were managed like permanent employees indicating a level of governmental oversight and control consistent with regular government service – Provisions of leave and other benefits, including grant of Assured Career Progression reinforces the similarity between the appellants’ employment conditions and those of regular government employees – Their charter of duties involving the maintenance of accounts for the SSD Fund is an assignment of public importance closely related to governmental functions – Applying the principles laid down in Ajay Hasia case which established various tests to determine 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 to the present case, the appellants meet the characteristics of regular government servants – Appellants served SFF HQ Estt. No. 22 for over three decades – While the duration of service alone may not be determinative, it is a significant factor when considered in conjunction with the other aspects of their employment – Such long-term service suggests a level of permanence and integration into the governmental structure that belies their classification as temporary employees – Appellants performed duties similar to those of regular employees in the Accounts Section of SFF HQ Estt. No.22 and served the government for decades in a manner indistinguishable from regular employees – Administrative orders and Board proceedings also consistently treated the appellants as equivalent to regular government employees – Denial of pensionary benefits solely on the basis of their temporary status not justifiable and is arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 – Impugned judgment of the High Court unsustainable, set aside – Appellants entitled to the benefits of the 6th CPC including the pensionary benefits under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 in the same terms as afforded to their peers in the Accounts Section of SFF HQ Estt. No. 22. [Paras 27-29, 32-36]Constitution of India – Article 12 – “authority” under – An entity, when is an instrumentality/agency of the Government – Tests laid down in Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others – Assessment of nature of employee-employer relationships – Discussed.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Neutral Citation	2024 INSC 621
Petitioner	Rajkaran Singh & Ors.
Respondent	Union Of India & Ors.
SCR	[2024] 8 S.C.R. 516
Judgement Date	2024-08-22
Case Number	9721

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Rajkaran Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

University of Delhi Vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran & Ors. Etc.

M. Raja Vs. Ceeri Educational Society Pilani & Anr.

Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Sri Ashwini Ray & Ors.

State of M.p. & Ors. Vs. Mala Banerjee

The Dharwad Distt. P.w.d. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association & Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. Etc.

State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. Gopaldas Etc. Etc.

Utkal University and Anr. Vs. Jyotirmayee Nayak and Ors.

Uday Pratap Thakur and Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Union of India and Anr. Vs. S.d. Bandhopadhyay and Ors.

Rajkaran Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Rajkaran Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

University of Delhi Vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran & Ors. Etc.

M. Raja Vs. Ceeri Educational Society Pilani & Anr.

Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Sri Ashwini Ray & Ors.

State of M.p. & Ors. Vs. Mala Banerjee

The Dharwad Distt. P.w.d. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association & Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. Etc.

State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. Gopaldas Etc. Etc.

Utkal University and Anr. Vs. Jyotirmayee Nayak and Ors.

Uday Pratap Thakur and Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Union of India and Anr. Vs. S.d. Bandhopadhyay and Ors.

Rajkaran Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.