Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. In Rajkaran Singh's case (supra) certain employees who were appointed to manage the funds of the Special Frontier Force (SFF) which is a welfare OP(KAT) Nos.381/2024, 380/2024, 405/2024, 399/2024, 395/2024, 398/2024, 429/2024, 480/2024 2025:KER:5401 initiative funded through personal contributions of the SFF troopers were denied pension on attaining the age of superannuation. They claimed pensionary benefits under the 6th Central Pay Commission. Their claim was rejected on the ground that they were not recruited under the regular rules and their pay was not made from the public fund. After discussing various decisions on the point, the Apex Court found that the appellants therein meet the characteristics of regular Government service and that they were appointed on a regular basis. The Apex Court made the following observations and concluded in favour of the appellants therein, based on the decision of the Apex Court in Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India [((2024) (1) SCR 1230]:

29. Indisputably, the appellants have 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 OP(KAT) Nos.381/2024, 380/2024, 405/2024, 399/2024, 395/2024, 398/2024, 429/2024, 480/2024 2025:KER:5401 classification as temporary employees. The appellants performed duties similar to those of regular employees in the Accounts Section of SFF HQ Estt. No. 22. This similarity in job functions further blurs the line between the appellants' status and that of regular government employees, suggesting that the distinction may be more formal than substantive. The extension of significant elements from the 4th and 5th CPC to the appellants further cements their plea of being employed in governmental functions.