Employees of autonomous bodies not entitled to same benefits as Govt Employees

In a recent verdict, the Allahabad High Court declared that employees of autonomous bodies cannot claim identical benefits to government employees simply by the adoption of government service rules, marking a significant distinction between the entitlements of the two categories.

The bench presided over by Justice Abdul Moin addressed a petition requesting directives for an Inter-District Transfer from Bahraich to Unnao. The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher in Bahraich, had sought a transfer, which was initially approved, allowing her to join Unnao. However, subsequent orders reversed the decision, mandating her return to Bahraich.

The primary issue before the court centered on the petitioner's eligibility for a 10-mark weightage based on her husband's employment with the State Government, a criterion mentioned in her transfer application.

Examining Clause 12 of the Government order dated 02.06.2023, the bench delved into constitutional articles such as 309, 310, 311, and 320, emphasizing that individuals considered to serve under the Government or State hold office at the pleasure of the respective executive authorities. Administrative control, recruitment rules, and oversight typically rest with the State Public Service Commission for such roles.

In this case, the petitioner's husband, an employee of Lucknow University—an autonomous body—had rules 'adopted' from the State Government. However, the court highlighted that despite the adoption of these rules, his appointment lacked consultation with the State Public Service Commission, indicating a lack of administrative control by the Governor.

The court clarified that adoption of rules by autonomous bodies does not categorize employees as government servants or under government service. It emphasized that the mere adoption of government rules by autonomous bodies does not grant employees the same entitlements as government employees. The ruling dismissed the petitioner's claims, emphasizing the distinction between government and autonomous body employees in terms of entitlements and benefits.

This verdict sets a precedent, delineating the disparities in benefits between government employees and those in autonomous bodies, based on the mere adoption of government service rules.