Supreme Court clarifies pension eligibility for Legal Services Committee Employees: Brahma Singh vs. Union of India (2020) INSC 123 (05 February 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 05 February 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 123

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

Can years of service in a legal aid committee be ignored when calculating an employee’s pension? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, focusing on the rights of employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The core issue was whether service rendered before the formal establishment of the committee should be considered for pension benefits. This judgment clarifies the rights of employees who have served in these committees for many years, ensuring their past service is not overlooked when calculating their retirement benefits. The judgment was authored by Justice Deepak Gupta, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao concurring.

Case Background

The petitioners are current and former employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. They sought to have their entire service period, including time spent with the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee before the formal establishment of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, counted towards their qualifying service for pension purposes. The Union of India rejected their claim, arguing that only service after the formal establishment of the committee should be considered. Some petitioners had joined the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee as early as 1981, meaning a significant portion of their service was at stake.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners had previously filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 267 of 2008, seeking pay and allowances under Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules, 2000. The Supreme Court allowed this petition, directing the respondents to grant the benefits of Rule 6, including pay scales and arrears from the date of the Rules’ promulgation (03.07.2000). However, the issue of counting past service for pension was not specifically addressed in that judgment.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules, 2000. Key provisions include:

• Section 3 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: This section deals with the constitution of the National Legal Services Authority. Sub-sections (5) and (6) allow the Central Authority to appoint officers and employees, with their pay and allowances to be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
• Section 3A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: This section provides for the constitution of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sub-sections (5) and (6) are identical to those in Section 3, concerning the appointment of officers and employees.
• Rule 9 of The National Legal Services Authority Rules, 1995: This rule stipulates that the conditions of service, salary, and allowances of officers and employees of the Central Authority shall be at par with Central Government employees holding equivalent posts. It further states that rules applicable to Central Government employees shall also apply to employees of the Central Authority in matters like retirement age and pay.
• Regulations 3(1) and 3(2) of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Regulations, 1996: These regulations address the transfer of assets, liabilities, and staff from the erstwhile Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Regulation 3(2) states, “The staff, who have been serving under the erstwhile Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee shall be deemed to be working for the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee”.
• Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules, 2000: This rule specifies the conditions of service, salary, and allowances for the committee’s officers and employees. Sub-rule (2) states, “In all matters like age of retirement, pay and allowances, benefits and entitlements and disciplinary matters, the officers and employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be governed by the Central Government rules as are applicable to persons holding equivalent posts.” The explanation to this rule clarifies that benefits include gratuity, provident fund, housing, medical benefits, pension, and group insurance.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that their service with the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee should be counted towards their qualifying service for pension, as they were continuously employed in the same capacity, performing the same duties, and were later deemed to be working for the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
• They contended that Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules, 2000, clearly states that all benefits, including pension, should be governed by Central Government rules, and that there is no distinction between service before and after the promulgation of the Rules.
• The petitioners relied on the previous judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 267 of 2008, where they were granted the benefits of Rule 6, arguing that this should also include the benefit of considering their entire service for pension.

Respondents’ Arguments (Union of India):

• The Union of India argued that the service rendered by the petitioners prior to 03.07.2000 (the date of promulgation of the Rules) could not be considered for qualifying service or retiral benefits.
• The Union of India contended that the issue of counting past service for pension should have been raised in the earlier writ petition, and since it was not specifically granted, it cannot be claimed in a second petition.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the service rendered by the petitioners in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee and Supreme Court Legal Services Committee prior to the promulgation of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules, 2000, is to be counted while calculating their qualifying service for determining pension.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 3 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: This section deals with the constitution of the National Legal Services Authority.
• Section 3A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: This section provides for the constitution of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
• Rule 9 of The National Legal Services Authority Rules, 1995: This rule stipulates that the conditions of service, salary, and allowances of officers and employees of the Central Authority shall be at par with Central Government employees holding equivalent posts.
• Regulations 3(1) and 3(2) of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Regulations, 1996: These regulations address the transfer of assets, liabilities, and staff from the erstwhile Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
• Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules, 2000: This rule specifies the conditions of service, salary, and allowances for the committee’s officers and employees.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [AIR 1962 SC 1334]* to support the view that the bar of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 may not apply to a petition for a high prerogative writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• The Court relied on Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat [AIR 1965 SC 1153]* to emphasize that the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, do not apply to the contents of a writ petition.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the petitioners had been continuously serving as employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, regardless of the formal changes in the committee’s structure. The Court emphasized that there was no distinction between the service rendered before and after the formal promulgation of the Rules in 2000. The Court also noted that the benefits under Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules, 2000, were intended to be at par with Central Government employees, and this would include considering all qualifying service for pension.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the Union of India’s argument that the issue should have been raised in the earlier writ petition, stating that the previous petition did not specifically address the issue of counting past service for pension. The Court also rejected the argument that service prior to 03.07.2000 should not be counted, emphasizing the continuous nature of the petitioners’ employment.

The Court stated, “They have been rendering service uninterruptedly as employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and no distinction can be made between the service prior to 03.07.2000 and the service rendered thereafter.” The Court further noted, “The petitioners have been regular employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and their entire service must be counted for determining their pension and other retiral benefits.” The Court also observed, “This entire service is to be treated as their qualifying service in accordance with the Rules.”

Key Takeaways

• Service rendered in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee prior to the formal establishment of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee must be counted towards qualifying service for pension.
• Employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee are entitled to benefits at par with Central Government employees, including the consideration of their entire service for pension.
• A second writ petition is maintainable if the issue was not specifically addressed in the earlier writ petition.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the entire service rendered by the petitioners in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee and the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and shall be taken into consideration for calculating their retiral benefits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the entire service rendered by employees in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee and the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, including the period before the formal promulgation of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules, 2000, must be counted for pension purposes. This clarifies that the benefits under the Rules must be applied retrospectively to the date of joining the committee. This decision ensures that employees are not penalized for the administrative changes made over time and that their continuous service is duly recognized for pension benefits.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Brahma Singh vs. Union of India provides significant relief to employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. By ruling that their entire service, including time spent with the predecessor committee, must be considered for pension, the Court has ensured that these employees receive the full benefits they are entitled to. This decision reinforces the principle that continuous service should not be disregarded due to administrative changes and that employees should receive benefits at par with Central Government employees.