Jharkhand High Court: While hearing writ petitions concerning the entitlement of personnel engaged under the Special Auxiliary Police (‘SAP’) scheme, a Single Judge Bench of Ananda Sen, J., held that such personnel were contractual appointees with a maximum tenure of seven years and not regular government servants. The Court observed that the scheme itself did not prescribe any age of retirement, and therefore these personnel could not claim superannuation benefits equivalent to regular government employees. Consequently, the petitions seeking parity in service benefits were dismissed.
Background:
The State, in order to maintain law and order, provide adequate force at police stations, eliminate anti-social elements, and handle security-related responsibilities in industrial establishments, constituted two battalions on 07-06-2008 called the “SAP Force.” The engagement was contractual in nature and comprised retired ex-army personnel.
The petitioners contended that it should be presumed that their age of superannuation would be the same as that of a government servant. They argued that their appointment should be co-terminous with the scheme and/or that their actual age of superannuation should be as per the policy of the Government. They further claimed discrimination, pointing out that some personnel had been allowed to continue for 15 years, whereas others were removed upon completion of 7 years of engagement.
The State submitted that as per the scheme, a period of 7 years was the maximum tenure for which personnel could work. However, clause 3 of the scheme provided that personnel would be engaged on a contractual basis for a period of 2 years, extendable up to 5 years, making the total tenure 7 years. Consequently, it was argued that any recommendation or suggestion could not override the scheme.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the formation of the SAP Force was by virtue of a scheme framed by the Government dated 07-06-2008. The scheme did not provide for any age of superannuation; the tenure had only been fixed. The Court noted that if any age of superannuation was to be included or read into the scheme, the same could only be done by a proper amendment and not by any recommendatory letter.
The Court observed that the scheme was nothing but a rule governing the SAP Force, and any deviation could only be made by a proper amendment. It was highlighted that no intra-departmental correspondence or opinion could override or supersede the clauses of the scheme. The Court further held that letters of recommendation had no value in the eyes of law, being merely opinions of individuals, and could not be treated as mandates to fix the age of superannuation.
The Court noted that respondents had committed an illegality by allowing some personnel to continue beyond the tenure prescribed under the scheme. It was observed that the petitioners could not derive any benefit from such illegalities, as there can be no equality in illegality. Finally, the Court held that there was a clear rationale behind fixing the maximum tenure at 7 years instead of prescribing an age of superannuation, as the State was required to rotate the workforce for the purpose for which the scheme had been formulated.
Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed, the interim orders earlier granted in favour of the petitioners stood vacated, and all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
[Francis Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3830, decided on 17-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Aparajita Bhardwaj, Advocate, Tanya Singh, Advocate, Rahul Kumar, Advocate, Richa Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General, Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG, Komal Tiwary, AC to AG