Eligible compassionate appointees of pre-BSNL DoT employees are entitled to GPF coverage.

The applicants were appointed by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) on compassionate grounds after 1 October 2000, following the death or medical invalidation of their family members while those employees were serving under DoT before 30 September 2000.

One applicant was appointed after the death of her spouse.

The applicants had initially been placed under the General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme, but BSNL later shifted them to the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) Scheme.

They sought restoration of GPF coverage, relying on BSNL instructions and decisions in favour of similarly situated employees.

Their representations remained unaddressed, and they filed these applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The respondents opposed extending the benefit, contending, among other things, that the Supreme Court had left the question of law open in the Raj Kumar proceedings.

1. Whether the applicants, appointed by BSNL on compassionate grounds after 1 October 2000 as nominees of DoT employees who died in harness or were medically invalidated before 30 September 2000, were entitled to GPF coverage rather than EPF coverage

2. Whether the applicants’ claims could be rejected or reconsidered afresh despite prior decisions concerning similarly situated employees and the subsequent Supreme Court proceedings

3. Whether delay or laches barred the applicants’ claims

The Tribunal relied on the BSNL instructions and clarifications governing compassionate appointees: the instructions dated 2 January 2001, reiterated in 2005, and the BSNL clarification dated 16 January 2003, which provided that persons appointed by BSNL on or after 1 October 2000 as nominees of DoT/DTS/DTO employees who died in harness up to 30 September 2000 would be covered by the GPF Scheme rather than the EPF/CPF Scheme.

It applied the decisions in Raj Kumar v. Union of India and connected matters, in which the Chandigarh Bench’s ruling in favour of GPF coverage was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the related Supreme Court appeals were disposed of; the Tribunal also noted subsequent decisions, including Amarti Devi, that followed Raj Kumar.

The Tribunal further relied on the principle that consistent treatment of similarly situated employees is required to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory outcomes under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal found that the applicants fell within the class identified by the BSNL instructions: they were appointed after 1 October 2000 as compassionate nominees of employees whose death or medical invalidation occurred before the relevant cut-off date.

It considered the consistent line of Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court proceedings concerning the same GPF issue, including the later decisions following Raj Kumar, and rejected the respondents’ request to decide the matter afresh.

Although the respondents relied on the question of law having been left open and on a pending review petition, the Tribunal concluded that the subsequent treatment of the issue, including the dismissal of related review petitions, did not justify withholding relief in these cases.

It also held that delay and laches did not defeat the claims because the alleged adverse deductions were recurring and the applicants’ representations had continued to be pursued.

It directed the respondents to restore those benefits within 12 weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The applications were disposed of without an order as to costs.