BSNL Recruits Appointed After Corporatization Are Governed by EPF Rules, Not the Old Pension Scheme.

The applicant applied for the post of Regular Mazdoor following a Department of Telecommunications (DoT) advertisement dated 26.07.2000

During the recruitment process, telecom services were corporatized, and BSNL was created on 01.10.2000

The applicant was appointed on 01.02.2001

Initially, based on a Presidential Order dated 08.01.2002, he was treated under the Old Pension Scheme/GPF

However, in 2010, the respondents shifted him to the EPF scheme, claiming the previous classification was an inadvertent error as he was a BSNL recruit, not a DoT recruit

The applicant challenged the rejection of his claim (order dated 15.05.2018) for restoration of the Old Pension Scheme

1. Whether an employee appointed after the formation of BSNL can claim benefits of the Old Pension Scheme (CCS Pension Rules) solely because the recruitment process commenced under the Department of Telecommunications prior to corporatization

2. Whether the erroneous conferment of GPF benefits and the issuance of a Presidential Order due to administrative oversight create a vested right that prevents the employer from rectifying the mistake

3. Whether the principle of "negative equality" under Article 14 can be invoked to claim parity with another employee allegedly receiving similar benefits erroneously

The court applied the principle that the legal character of the employer and the status of the employee on the date of appointment determines the governing service rules

It relied on the doctrine that there is no estoppel against law, meaning administrative errors or patent illegalities do not ripen into vested rights and can be rectified at any time

the court applied the principle that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not contemplate "negative equality"; an illegality committed in one case does not entitle others to claim the same illegal benefit

It also addressed the statutory limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding belated challenges to service shifts

Since the applicant's appointment was issued on 01.02.2001—after BSNL's formation on 01.10.2000—he is a BSNL recruit and not a DoT employee

The "old vacancy, old rules" principle was held inapplicable because the structural change of the employer from a government department to a corporate entity altered the legal framework before the appointment was finalized

Regarding the GPF deductions and the 2002 Presidential Order, the court found these were manifest administrative mistakes; since the applicant had no legal entitlement to the DoT pension regime, the respondents were within their rights to correct the error by switching him to EPF

The Tribunal dismissed the plea of parity with Smt. Mehnaz, noting she was a compassionate appointee and that even if her GPF status was an error, the applicant could not claim a "right to a wrong" under Article 14

It held that the respondents were justified in rectifying the inadvertent error of 2002 and that the long delay/acquiescence (from 2010 to 2017) further weakened the applicant's claim

The impugned order dated 15.05.2018 was upheld as lawful and justified

No order as to costs was made