The Supreme Court of India upheld a Delhi High Court judgment denying pension and other benefits under the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) to employees managing the Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund for the Special Frontier Force (SFF). The appellants were employed temporarily without the formal recruitment process applicable to government servants, and their salaries were paid from the SSD Fund, which is not funded by the government. The Court ruled that the appellants do not qualify as government employees, affirming the lower courts' decisions.

1. Background

• Appellants were employed in various clerical and accounting positions to manage the SSD Fund, a welfare initiative funded by personal contributions from SFF troops.
• Despite serving for decades, they were denied benefits under the 6th CPC, unlike regular government employees.

2. Judicial Journey

• The appellants' claim for benefits under the 6th CPC was initially rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and later by the Delhi High Court.
• The Supreme Court was approached via a special leave petition.

3. Appellants' Arguments

• The appellants contended they performed similar duties to regular government employees and should receive equal treatment, including pensionary benefits.
• They argued that the denial of benefits was arbitrary and violated their constitutional rights.

4. Respondents' Defense

• The government argued that the SSD Fund was not financed by the government and that the appellants were hired temporarily without following the formal recruitment process for government employees.
• It was emphasized that the appellants' salaries and benefits were distinct from those of regular Central government employees.

5. Supreme Court’s Decision

• The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, stating that the appellants did not meet the criteria for government employee status.
• The Court recognized the difference in employment terms and conditions between SSD Fund staff and regular government employees.

6. Conclusion

• The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were denied the benefits under the 6th CPC, affirming that their employment was non-governmental in nature and did not entitle them to the same benefits as regular government employees.