Employees Of Autonomous Bodies Can’t Claim Same Service Benefits As Government Employees: Supreme Court

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:5 mins read

Employees Of Autonomous Bodies Can’t Claim Same Service Benefits As Government Employees

Case: State of Maharashtra vs Bhagwan

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Case no.: CA 7682-7684 OF 2021

Court Observation: “As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the Government employees. Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there may be a representative of the Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by the State/Central Government, employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government employees. This is more particularly, when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions. The State Government and the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par.”

“As per the settled proposition of law, the Court should refrain from interfering with the policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and having financial implications. Whether to grant certain benefits to the employees or not should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the Court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences.”

Grant of pensionary benefits is not a one-time payment. Grant of pensionary benefits is a recurring monthly expenditure and there is a continuous liability in future towards the pensionary benefits. Therefore, merely because at one point of time, WALMI might have certain funds does not mean that for all times to come, it can bear such burden of paying pension to all its employees. In any case, it is ultimately for the State Government and the Society (WALMI) to take their own policy decision whether to extend the pensionary benefits to its employees or not. The interference by the Judiciary in such a policy decision having financial implications and/or having a cascading effect is not at all warranted and justified.

Previous Posts

Cryptic & Casual Bail Orders Without Relevant Reasons Liable To Be Set Aside: Supreme Court

NCLT Must Pass Reasonable Order For Fees & Expenses Of Resolution Professional: Supreme Court

Dowry Death Presumption Under S.113B Of Evidence Act: Proximity Test Does Not Define Any Particular Time Period: Supreme Court

Decisions Of Expert Bodies Like PSC Should Not Be Lightly Interfered With: Supreme Court Upholds UP Police Recruitment Process

Mere Common Intention Per Se May Not Attract Section 34 IPC Without An Action In Furtherance: Supreme Court

Trial Judges Work Amidst Appalling Conditions; Colonial Mindset Towards District Judiciary Must Change: Supreme Court Download Judgement