As per case facts, the appellants, who were appointed to manage the Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund of the Special Frontier Force (SFF) in various positions and received benefits ... as per the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commissions, were denied the benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission. Instead, an ad-hoc amount was provided. Their claim for pensionary benefits under the 6th CPC was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal and subsequently by the Delhi High Court, on the grounds that they were not government employees and were not appointed following proper recruitment rules. The question arose whether these appellants, despite being classified as temporary employees of a scheme funded by contributory pooling, could be entitled to pensionary benefits in line with the 6th Central Pay Commission. Finally, the Supreme Court found substantial evidence indicating the appellants' characteristics as regular government servants, citing their regular pay scales, increments, promotions, and Assured Career Progression benefits, as well as over three decades of service with duties mirroring those of regular employees. The Court concluded that denying pensionary benefits based solely on their temporary classification was arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights. Therefore, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the respondents were directed to extend 6th CPC benefits, including pensionary benefits under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008, to the appellants on par with their regular counterparts.