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

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 employeeemployer 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.