Retrospectively Regularised BSNL Mazdoor To Get Two NEPP Upgradations And Revised Retirement Benefits: CAT

The applicant was engaged as a Daily Rated Mazdoor in 1996, granted temporary status in 1999, and—following an earlier Tribunal order—regularized retrospectively from 30 November 2000.

He retired on 31 October 2013.

He claimed two benefits under the Non-Executive Promotion Policy (NEPP), consequential revision of his retiral benefits, interest on delayed GPF, and interest on the employer’s EPF contribution.

After an earlier Tribunal order directed the respondents to consider these claims, BSNL rejected the NEPP claim and did not fully resolve the interest claims by its order dated 4 June 2018.

The applicant challenged that order in this O.A.

The Tribunal applied the principle that retrospective regularization carries consequential service benefits under the applicable service rules and policies; an employer cannot recognize regularization from an earlier date while denying benefits flowing from it

It relied on the applicable NEPP provisions for determining pay upgradations, and on its earlier order dated 3 April 2018 directing GPF interest at 6% per annum from the date the amount became due until release.

It further held that the absence of ACRs/APARs maintained by the employer cannot, by itself, defeat an otherwise admissible entitlement, and that interest on delayed EPF contribution is governed by the applicable statutory provisions or rules.

No external judicial precedent is identified as forming the basis of the Tribunal’s decision.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s regularization from 30 November 2000 as requiring the respondents to assess and grant consequential benefits under the NEPP, rather than reject the claim solely by asserting insufficient qualifying service or missing ACRs/APARs.

It considered the respondents’ earlier reliance on the matter being sub judice and the subsequent judicial determination concerning similarly situated employees, and concluded that the applicant’s entitlement required assessment in light of his retrospective regularization and the applicable policy.

It therefore directed the two NEPP benefits due in 2004 and 2008, with corresponding pay and retiral-benefit revisions.

On limitation, the Tribunal found that the applicant had continuously pursued his claims and that the respondents had themselves acknowledged, after verification, that further sums remained payable.

For GPF, it ordered interest at 6% until actual release, less interest already paid; for EPF, it treated the principal contribution as paid but preserved the applicant’s entitlement to any interest available under the applicable rules.

It directed the respondents to grant the two NEPP benefits falling due in 2004 and 2008, refix pay, recalculate consequential retiral and pensionary benefits, and pay the resulting arrears.

It also directed payment of GPF interest at 6% per annum from when the amount became due until actual release, after adjustment of sums already paid, and any legally admissible interest on the delayed EPF contribution.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified order, with monetary benefits released within a further month; there was no order as to costs.