Retrospective temporary status does not automatically confer regularization or entitlement to GPF coverage.

The applicants were engaged as Casual Labourers under the erstwhile Department of Telecommunications in 1988.

They were provisionally granted Temporary Status (TSM) by order dated 27.05.1996, but the status was not implemented.

After proceedings before the Tribunal, the Gauhati High Court directed implementation of the 1996 order, and the Supreme Court dismissed BSNL’s Special Leave Petitions on 29.03.2023.

Consequently, BSNL conferred TSM status upon the applicants retrospectively from 27.05.1996 by order dated 28.07.2023.

The applicants claimed that, by virtue of the Department of Telecommunications Circular dated 29.09.2000, they were entitled to regularization with effect from 01.10.2000 and to consequential coverage under the General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme.

They also challenged the Corrigendum dated 12.10.2023, by which they were continued under the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) Scheme with Employees’ State Insurance and gratuity benefits.

BSNL contended that the 29.09.2000 Circular did not confer an unconditional right of regularization, as regularization was subject to adjustment against available vacancies and applicable norms.

It further maintained that the applicants had not been regularized pursuant to that Circular and were therefore correctly covered under the EPF Scheme.

1. Whether retrospective conferment of TSM status upon the applicants with effect from 27.05.1996 automatically entitled them to regularization with effect from 01.10.2000 under the DoT Circular dated 29.09.2000?

2. Whether the applicants were consequently entitled to coverage under the GPF Scheme and to the quashing of the Corrigendum dated 12.10.2023 continuing them under the EPF Scheme?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the application was instituted.

It construed the DoT Circular dated 29.09.2000 as providing for regularization of eligible Casual Labourers, including TSMs, with effect from 01.10.2000, but subject to adjustment against available vacancies and creation of posts in accordance with prescribed norms; therefore, the Circular did not create an unconditional or automatic right of regularization.

The DoT Office Memorandum dated 20.10.2006 and BSNL communication dated 23.03.2007 were understood to distinguish between TSMs regularized pursuant to the 29.09.2000 Circular, who could fall under the GPF Scheme, and Casual Labourers regularized in BSNL after 01.10.2000, who would be governed by the EPF Scheme.

The Tribunal also noted the principle flowing from Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) that regularization cannot ordinarily be granted merely on the basis of long service where the initial engagement was not through a regular recruitment process.

The Tribunal held that retrospective TSM status from 27.05.1996 established the applicants’ eligibility for consideration under the applicable regularization framework, but did not itself prove that they had actually been regularized pursuant to the DoT Circular dated 29.09.2000.

The Circular required consideration of available vacancies, adjustment against sanctioned posts, and compliance with prescribed norms; accordingly, TSM status alone could not automatically confer regular employee status from 01.10.2000.

Similarly, the GPF entitlement depended on whether the applicants were regularized under the 29.09.2000 framework.

Since that foundational fact had not been established, the Tribunal declined to direct immediate transfer from EPF to GPF or to invalidate the Corrigendum dated 12.10.2023.

Nevertheless, the applicants’ claim required a fresh, reasoned determination in light of their retrospectively recognized TSM status and the relevant policy documents.

It directed the competent respondent authority to consider and decide, by a reasoned and speaking order, the applicants’ claim for regularization under the DoT Circular dated 29.09.2000, taking into account their retrospective TSM status, eligibility, available vacancies, and relevant records.

Their entitlement to GPF was also directed to be considered according to the applicable rules and depending on the decision regarding regularization.

The exercise was to be completed within four weeks of receipt of the order.

The O.A. was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.