Compassionate appointees selected by DoT before BSNL’s formation are entitled to GPF benefits.

The petitioner’s father, an employee of the Department of Telecommunications (“DoT”), died on 3 September 1995.

The petitioner was provisionally selected by the DoT for compassionate appointment as a Telecom Office Assistant with effect from 3 July 2000, subject to successful completion of prescribed training.

During his training, BSNL was incorporated on 1 October 2000.

Thereafter, BSNL issued a formal appointment order dated 17 November 2000, appointing the petitioner with effect from 4 October 2000 upon satisfactory completion of training.

The petitioner continued to receive salary and subscribe to the General Provident Fund (“GPF”) until August 2018, when BSNL stopped accepting his GPF contributions and asserted that he was required to subscribe to the Employees’ Provident Fund (“EPF”) because his formal appointment had been issued by BSNL.

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his claim, reasoning that seven of the eight similarly appointed persons were subscribing to EPF.

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s salary was also withheld, although an interim order directed payment of ₹20,000 per month.

1. Whether the petitioner, having been provisionally appointed by the DoT before the formation of BSNL and formally appointed by BSNL after completion of training, was entitled to coverage under the GPF scheme rather than the EPF scheme.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of withheld salary with interest.

The Court applied the principle that the substantive character of an appointment is determined by the original appointment and the terms governing it, rather than merely by the authority issuing the subsequent formal order.

Where the DoT had provisionally selected a candidate for compassionate appointment and expressly assured appointment upon successful completion of training, a formal appointment order issued by BSNL after its incorporation would be treated as effectuating the earlier DoT appointment.

The Court also relied on the BSNL notification recognising entitlement to GPF for employees whose deceased parent had died before 30 September 2000 and whose children were subsequently appointed on compassionate grounds.

It considered the decisions of the Gauhati, Punjab and Haryana, and Kerala High Courts, including M/s BSNL Ltd. v. Smt. Nivedita Pathak, and noted that the relevant Punjab and Haryana decision had been affirmed after dismissal of SLP (Civil) No. 35048 of 2010, converted into Civil Appeal No. 1971 of 2012, on 26 July 2023; the Kerala High Court decision was also stated to have been affirmed by dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 4690 of 2012 on 12 February 2026.

The Court further applied the principle that salary cannot be withheld in its entirety on an administrative or procedural pretext and awarded reasonable interest on the delayed payment.

The Court distinguished the petitioner’s substantive appointment from the later administrative formality.

The petitioner had been selected by the DoT before BSNL came into existence, and the DoT’s order expressly promised appointment after successful completion of training.

The BSNL appointment order merely implemented that pre-existing promise after the petitioner completed training; the intervening creation of BSNL could not alter the character of the appointment.

In light of the BSNL notification and the supporting High Court decisions affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal erred in relying principally on the fact that most similarly situated employees subscribed to EPF, without examining the petitioner’s original DoT appointment and the applicable notification.

The Court further held that the entire salary could not have been withheld, even if BSNL required the petitioner’s banking details, and that the prolonged withholding justified interest at 6% per annum.

BSNL was directed to release the balance withheld salary immediately and to pay 6% interest on the withheld salary, with payment to be made within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

The connected civil applications for clarification and direction were disposed of.