Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Manish Sharma vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 21 April, 2026
1 (OA No. 060/579/2020)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on :13.03.2026
Pronounced on : 21.04.2026
OA No. 060/579/2020
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA,MEMBER(A)
1. Manish Sharma, Aged 49 years, HRMS No.
200004137, S/o Late Sh. Surinder Pal Sharma,
working as JAO(TRA), O/o AO (TRA-I), under PGMT,
BSNL, Amritsar.
2. Neeru Sharma, Aged 55 years, HRMs No. 200101721,
W/o Late Sh. Surinder Pal, working as Senior Office
Associate, O/o SDE (Civil-Lines), under PGMT, BSNL,
Amritsar.
3. Sunita Rani, Aged 53 years, HRMS No. 200100306,
W/o Late Sh. Ashish Kumar, working as Senior Office
Associate, O/o SDE (HR/Admn.), under PGMT, BSNL,
Amritsar.
4. Kamal Kumar, Aged 43 years, HRMS No. 200002490,
S/o Late Sh. Babu Lal, working as Senior Office
Associate, O/o SDE (Civil Lines), under PGMT, BSNL,
Amritsar.
5. Hardeep Singh, HRMS No. 200003487, Aged 44
years, S/o Late Sh. Sulakhan Singh, working as
Junior Engineer, O/o SDE, tarn Taran under PGMT,
BSNL, Amritsar.
.......Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Sh. Mandeep Singh and Sh. Abhimanyu Rana)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through the Secretary to Govt. of
India, Ministry of Communications & Information
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30'
2 (OA No. 060/579/2020)
Technology, Department of Telecommunications, New
Delhi.
2. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED through its
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Harish Chander
Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi.
3. Chief General Manager, Telecom, Punjab Circle,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sector 34-A,
Chandigarh.
4. Pr. General Manager Telecom, District Amritsar.
5. Pr. General Manager Telecom District, BSNL, Sector
34, Chandigarh.
..............Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Ms.
Jyotika Panesar for respdt. No. 1, Sh.
K.K. Thakur with Ms. Jasleen for
respdts. No. 2 to 5)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. This Original Application has been made against the orders dated 17/23.06.2020 (Annexure A-1 to A-
5) passed by the respondent No.4, whereby the claim of applicants No. 1 to 5 for not cancelling Presidential orders issued in their favour so as to entitled them to be covered under Old Pension-cum- GPF Scheme has not been considered only for the reason that they were not party in the earlier litigation decided by this Hon'ble Tribunal in T.A.s No. 35/PB/2009, 37/PB/2009 and 38/PB/2009 NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 3 (OA No. 060/579/2020) decided on 22.01.2020 and upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CWP No. 14802/CAT/2010 and 14817/CAT/2010 decided on 19.08.2010 and quashing thereof.
2. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
i. Quash Against orders dated 17/23.06.2020 (Annexure A-1 to A-5) passed by the respondent No.4, whereby the claim of applicants No. 1 to 5 for not cancelling Presidential orders issued in their favour so as to entitled them to be covered under Old Pension-cum-GPF Scheme has not been considered only for the reason that they were not party in the earlier litigation decided by this Hon'ble Tribunal in T.A.s No. 35/PB/2009, 37/PB/2009 and 38/PB/2009 decided on 22.01.2020 and upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CWP No. 14802/CAT/2010 and 14817/CAT/2010 decided on 19.08.2010 and quashing thereof.
ii. Direct the respondents to extend the benefits of judgments in T.A.s No. 35/PB/2009, 37/PB/2009 and 38/PB/2009 decided on 22.01.2020 and upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CWP No. 14802/CAT/2010 and 14817/CAT/2010 decided on 19.08.2010 and treat the applicants Department of Telecom recruitee and BSNL absorbee and not to cancel their Presidential Orders with all the consequential benefits.
3. The facts as projected by the applicants in this Original Application are that Their fathers/husbands were employees of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) who died in harness prior to 30.09.2000, i.e., before the formation of BSNL. NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 4 (OA No. 060/579/2020) Subsequently, the applicants were considered for compassionate appointment as Telecom Office Assistants (TOA). Most of the applicants were approved for compassionate appointment by DoT prior to 01.10.2000, and in several cases, their training had already commenced or was completed before the formation of BSNL. Applicants No. 1, 4, and 5 underwent training from 03.07.2000 to 02.10.2000 under DoT, followed by practical training as per orders dated 28.06.2000 and 01.09.2000 (Annexure A-6 & A-7).
4. Upon completion of training, applicants No. 1, 4, and 5 were appointed as TOAs w.e.f. 03.10.2000 vide order dated 04.12.2000 (Annexure A-8), and their training period was counted for increment vide order dated 22.11.2001(Annexure A-9). Similarly, applicants No. 2 and 3 were trained from 05.02.2001 to 04.05.2001 (Annexure A-10 & A-11) and appointed w.e.f. 05.05.2001.
5. With the formation of BSNL on 01.10.2000, the applicants exercised their option for absorption in BSNL. Consequently, Presidential Orders for permanent absorption were issued in their favour on NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 5 (OA No. 060/579/2020) various dates (Annexure A-14 to A-20), entitling them to pensionary benefits including GPF, gratuity, and family pension. Relevant policy clarifications dated 02.01.2001 and 16.01.2003 (Annexure A-21 & A-22) specifically provided that compassionate appointees of deceased DoT employees (who died before 30.09.2000) would be governed by the GPF scheme.
6. Despite being treated as GPF subscribers from the date of appointment, the respondents converted their status to EPF in 2008, along with similarly situated employees. This issue had already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 35/PB/2009 and connected matters, decided on 22.01.2010 (Annexure A-23), wherein the Tribunal directed restoration of the GPF scheme, holding that the clarification dated 16.01.2003 remained valid.
7. The Tribunal's judgment dated 22.01.2010 was subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble High Court on 19.08.2010 and 21.05.2012, though certain SLPs are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court without any stay on operation of the judgments. The NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 6 (OA No. 060/579/2020) applicants, being identically situated, claim parity with the beneficiaries of the said judgments.
8. However, the respondents issued Show Cause Notices dated 26.05.2020 and 02.07.2020 (Annexure A-24 to A-30) proposing cancellation of Presidential Orders. The applicants submitted detailed replies (Annexure A-31 to A-36), but the same were rejected vide orders dated 17/23.06.2020 (Annexure A-1 to A-5) on untenable grounds. The respondents are now proceeding to cancel the Presidential Orders, which would cause irreparable loss and injury to the applicants, necessitating the filing of the present Original Application.
9. The applicants have challenged order dated 17/23.06.2020 (Annexure A-1 to A-5) whereby their claim for continuation of Presidential Orders and grant of Old GPF-cum-Pension Scheme was rejected. They seek to be treated as DoT absorbees and to be extended benefits of earlier judicial decisions.
10. Vide our order dated 28.08.2020, the respondents were restrained from implementing the orders (Annexures A-1 to A-5) qua applicants No. 1 to 5. NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 7 (OA No. 060/579/2020)
11. In the written statement filed by the respondents, the respondents state that the applicants were appointed on compassionate grounds and completed training before joining service. Applicants 1, 4 and 5 underwent training from 03.07.2000 to 02.10.2000 and joined BSNL on 03.10.2000, while applicants 2 and 3 trained from 05.02.2001 to 04.05.2001 and joined on 05.05.2001. Since all joined after 01.10.2000 (formation of BSNL), they are treated as BSNL appointees.
12. Show cause notices for cancellation of Presidential Orders were issued vide BSNL letter dated 04.05.2007 and endorsement dated 16.05.2007. After considering replies, the Presidential Orders were cancelled vide orders dated 21.07.2020.
13. The respondents contend that Rule 37-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, notified on 30.09.2000, applies only to DoT employees absorbed in BSNL and not to those appointed after 01.10.2000. Accordingly, applicants are not entitled to Old Pension Scheme/GPF and are governed by EPF as BSNL recruits. Reliance is placed on BSNL letter dated NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 8 (OA No. 060/579/2020) 10.05.2007 (Annexure R-1), clarified on 25.05.2007, which superseded earlier instructions dated 16.01.2003.
14. It is further stated that the applicants joined after the cutoff date of 30.09.2000, were never DoT employees, and any Presidential Orders issued in their favour were erroneous and liable to be withdrawn. Benefits granted by mistake do not create any vested right.
15. The respondents also submit that the judgments relied upon by the applicants in T.A. No. 35/37/38- PB-2009 (decided on 21.01.2020) and CWP No. 14802 & 14817 of 2010 (decided on 19.08.2010) are not applicable as the applicants were not parties, and the matter is pending in SLP. Reliance is also placed on O.A. No. 230/2014 (decided on 29.07.2016) holding that appointment after the cutoff date attracts the new pension regime.
16. It is further pointed out that the applicants accepted conversion from GPF to EPF in 2008 without protest and are therefore estopped from claiming otherwise NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 9 (OA No. 060/579/2020) after a long delay. Two applicants also withdrew their OA vide order dated 28.08.2020.
17. The respondents conclude that the applicants are purely BSNL appointees, not entitled to pensionary benefits under Rule 37-A, and that cancellation of Presidential Orders is legal and justified. Accordingly, the Original Application is stated to be without merit and liable to be dismissed.
18. In the rejoinder filed by the applicants, while reiterating their stand in the Original Application, the applicants submit that the impugned orders rejecting their representations and seeking to cancel the Presidential Orders are illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, particularly after an inordinate delay of 17-18 years. It is contended that the applicants' fathers/husbands were employees of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) who died in harness prior to the formation of BSNL, and the applicants, being legal heirs appointed on compassionate grounds, stepped into their shoes. The applicants emphasize that their rights accrued on the dates of death of the deceased employees and NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 10 (OA No. 060/579/2020) cannot be defeated merely because their appointments were delayed by the respondents or were issued after the formation of BSNL. Accordingly, they assert that they are required to be treated as DoT recruitees and BSNL absorbees, with entitlement to pensionary benefits under the old pension-cum- GPF scheme.
19. The applicants further submit that vested rights cannot be taken away retrospectively by administrative instructions or subsequent policy changes, and that the respondents' interpretation of pension rules is self-serving and legally untenable. Reliance is placed on judicial precedents such as Ex. Capt. K.C. Arora vs. State of Haryana (1984 SLR (3) 97), Daljit Singh Narula vs. State of Haryana (1979 (1) SLR 420), and Surinder Kumar vs. Union of India (CWP No. 11586/2008), to contend that even statutory rules cannot operate retrospectively to the detriment of accrued rights. It is further argued that similarly situated persons are entitled to equal treatment in view of decisions in Ganga Ram and U.T. Chandigarh vs. Ram Swaroop Walia. On these grounds, the applicants NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 11 (OA No. 060/579/2020) maintain that the Presidential Orders were validly issued, cannot be withdrawn, and the Original Application deserves to be allowed with costs along with continuation of interim relief.
20. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned orders (Annexures A-1 to A-5) are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and are therefore liable to be quashed. It is argued that the applicants are entitled to be treated as Department of Telecom recruitees and BSNL absorbees with all consequential benefits, including coverage under the Old Pension- cum-GPF Scheme. The issue is no longer res integra, as the case of the applicants is squarely covered by the judgment dated 22.01.2010 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in T.A. No. 35/PB/2009 and connected matters, as well as O.A. No. 735/HR/2010 (Dalbir Singh & Ors.), both of which stand upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.
21. It is further contended that the Presidential Orders issued in favour of the applicants confer upon them a NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 12 (OA No. 060/579/2020) vested right to pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, which cannot be taken away or diluted by subsequent executive clarifications. The applicants' entitlement is further reinforced by the notification dated 02.01.2001 governing absorption in BSNL and the clarification dated 16.01.2003, which specifically provides for coverage under the GPF Scheme in cases like that of the applicants. The fact that GPF deductions are already being made from their salaries clearly establishes their status as DoT recruitees/BSNL absorbees.
22. Learned counsel further submits that it is a settled principle of law that service conditions cannot be altered retrospectively to the detriment of employees and that vested rights cannot be taken away. Administrative instructions creating rights cannot be withdrawn with retrospective effect. It is also well established that similarly situated employees are entitled to the same relief without being compelled to approach courts repeatedly. Additionally, the applicants' case is covered under the relevant Office Memorandums dated 17.02.2020, 25.06.2020 and 16.07.2020, as their selection stood finalized prior to NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 13 (OA No. 060/579/2020) 01.10.2000. Hence, the impugned action of the respondents deserves to be set aside and the applicants granted all consequential benefits.
23. Whereas the respondents argue that the applicants are governed by a clear statutory position (Para 4(3)), which has not been set aside by any court, and therefore cannot be overridden by judicial interpretation or administrative instructions. They contend that the applicants, being BSNL appointees after 01.10.2000, were never recruited as DoT employees nor did they hold any Government post, and hence are not covered under Rule 37-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. As such, they are not entitled to pensionary or other benefits attached to Government service.
24. It is further submitted that any earlier grant of GPF or pensionary benefits was merely an administrative error, which has been rightly rectified in accordance with statutory provisions, rendering such benefits void ab initio. The respondents emphasize that statutory rules prevail over administrative instructions, and no amount of past practice or NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 14 (OA No. 060/579/2020) executive orders can confer benefits contrary to law. Accordingly, the applicants' claims are legally untenable, and the Original Application deserves dismissal with costs.
25. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
26. Upon a careful consideration of the rival submissions and material placed on record, this Tribunal finds that the controversy in the present case revolves around the determination of the status of the applicants, i.e., whether they are to be treated as Department of Telecommunications (DoT) recruitees subsequently absorbed in BSNL, or as fresh appointees of BSNL after its formation on 01.10.2000. It is not in dispute that the deceased employees, on whose compassionate grounds the applicants were appointed, were admittedly employees of DoT and had died in harness prior to the formation of BSNL. The record further reveals that in several cases, the process of compassionate appointment had been initiated and, in some instances, substantially NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 15 (OA No. 060/579/2020) completed prior to 01.10.2000, thereby giving rise to enforceable rights in favour of the applicants.
27. The Tribunal also takes note of the fact that Presidential Orders for absorption were issued in favour of the applicants and they were treated as GPF subscribers for a considerable period. Such conferment of status and benefits cannot be said to be casual or inadvertent, particularly when supported by relevant policy clarifications dated 02.01.2001 and 16.01.2003. The subsequent attempt of the respondents to alter the status of the applicants after an inordinate delay is arbitrary and hit by the doctrine of legitimate expectation (Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society vs. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 477).
28. The plea of the respondents that the applicants are not entitled to the benefit of earlier judgments on the ground that they were not parties thereto cannot be accepted. It is a settled proposition that similarly situated persons are entitled to the same relief (Inder Pal Yadav vs. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 648; K.C. Sharma vs. Union of India, (1997) NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 16 (OA No. 060/579/2020) 6 SCC 721). Denial of such benefit would amount to hostile discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
29. Further, the contention of the respondents that the Presidential Orders were issued erroneously and can be withdrawn at any time is untenable. Once rights have accrued and have been acted upon over a long period, the same cannot be withdrawn to the detriment of the employees (State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334). Pensionary benefits constitute a valuable right and cannot be arbitrarily denied (D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305).
30. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 17/23.06.2020 (Annexure A-1 to A-5) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The action of the respondents in seeking to cancel the Presidential Orders and to deny the applicants the benefit of the Old Pension-cum-GPF Scheme is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30' 17 (OA No. 060/579/2020)
31. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned orders dated 17/23.06.2020 (Annexure A-1 to A-5) are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the applicants as DoT recruitees and BSNL absorbees and to extend to them the benefit of the Old Pension-cum-GPF Scheme, along with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law. The interim protection granted earlier shall stand confirmed.
32. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) Member (A) Member (J) ND* Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30'