GOVERNMENT CANNOT SPEAK IN TWO VOICES – PENSION RIGHTS FOR SEASONAL LABOUR ROLL WORKERS MUST BE RECONSIDERED: KERALA HIGH COURT

Denial of Pensionary Benefits Solely on Temporary Status is Arbitrary and Violates Fundamental Rights - Kerala High Court directed the State Government to reconsider the pensionary claims of Seasonal Labour Roll (SLR) workers in the Water Resources Department, emphasizing the constitutional mandate of equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16. A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar ruled that the government cannot arbitrarily deny pension benefits to SLR workers in one department while granting the same to their counterparts in another.

"The government cannot speak in two voices when it comes to employees who are similarly placed. If SLR workers in the Fisheries Department have been granted pensionary benefits, there is no justifiable reason to deny the same to SLR workers in the Water Resources Department," observed the Court while disposing of OP(KAT) No. 381 of 2024 and connected petitions.

The Court emphasized that the Cabinet Decision dated 16/02/2011, which regularized SLR workers who had completed 500 working days and 10 years of service, must be given due consideration. The government was directed to take a fresh, reasoned decision within three months and provide the petitioners with an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioners, retired SLR workers of the Water Resources Department, had worked for several years under temporary status. Despite completing decades of continuous service, they were denied pensionary benefits, unlike their counterparts in the Fisheries Department, who were granted such benefits through GO (P) No. 23/2006/F&PD.

They initially approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), seeking regularization of service, extension of employment up to 60 years, and pensionary benefits. However, KAT merely disposed of their applications without granting specific relief, stating that the government was at liberty to decide their claims.

The petitioners challenged this ruling before the Kerala High Court, arguing that denying them pension while granting it to similarly placed workers in another department amounted to unconstitutional discrimination.

"Government Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Pension to One Set of Employees While Granting It to Another"
The High Court strongly rebuked the government’s contradictory stance, stating: "The State cannot adopt different yardsticks for employees discharging similar duties under different departments. Once a benefit has been extended to a class of employees, the same cannot be arbitrarily denied to another similarly placed class without valid justification."

The Court further observed that the Cabinet Decision dated 16/02/2011 had proposed regularization of SLR workers with 10 years of service, classifying them as Worker Grade II from 01/01/2011. However, the government had excluded pensionary benefits, creating an inconsistency in its treatment of employees.

"Essence of Employment Cannot Be Determined Solely by Initial Appointment Terms"
The petitioners relied on Rajkaran Singh v. Union of India [(2004) 8 SCR 516] and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [(2024 INSC 332)], arguing that their long-term service warranted recognition as regular employees with pensionary entitlements.

The Court underscored that employment rights evolve over time, and merely labeling a worker as "temporary" at the outset does not justify perpetual denial of benefits. It cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, stating:

"The essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be determined merely by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the petitioners, performing duties indistinguishable from those of permanent employees, constitutes a substantive departure from the temporary nature of their initial engagement."

The Court further reiterated the principle laid down in Rajkaran Singh, observing: "Long-term service suggests a level of permanence and integration into the governmental structure that belies classification as temporary employees. Denying pensionary benefits solely on the basis of their temporary status is an oversimplification of their employment relationship with the government."

"Financial Constraints Cannot Override Constitutional Guarantees"
The State Government argued that granting pensionary benefits to SLR workers in the Water Resources Department would impose a financial burden, potentially leading to a floodgate of similar claims.

The High Court rejected this argument outright, stating: "While financial constraints are relevant considerations in policymaking, they cannot override constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. Fiscal concerns cannot be used as a shield to justify unequal treatment of employees performing similar functions."

The Court further remarked: "Creating a class of employees who, despite serving the government for decades in a manner indistinguishable from regular employees, are deprived of pensionary benefits runs counter to the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."

Final Direction: Government Must Reconsider Within Three Months
In its concluding remarks, the Court did not directly order the government to grant pension, but made it clear that the petitioners' claims must be re-evaluated in light of the Cabinet Decision (16/02/2011) and the Supreme Court’s directives on service regularization and pension entitlements.

"The government must assess whether the petitioners' service conditions evolved to justify pensionary benefits. A fresh decision must be taken within three months, and the petitioners must be afforded an opportunity of hearing," directed the Court.

The Court left no room for arbitrary rejection, emphasizing that any decision must be based on reasoned analysis and constitutional principles.

Conclusion: Strengthening Equal Treatment in Public Employment
The Kerala High Court’s ruling marks a significant step in ensuring fairness in government employment policies. By reaffirming the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment, the judgment sets a crucial precedent for cases involving pension rights and regularization of temporary government employees.

As the Court unequivocally stated: "Once a government acknowledges that a set of employees performs duties akin to permanent staff, it cannot arbitrarily deny them benefits by relying on the initial terms of appointment. Policy decisions must align with constitutional mandates, ensuring that no section of employees is unfairly deprived of their rightful benefits."

Date of Decision: 28 January 2025