Case Details: General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Narayan - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 493 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Kishore C. Sant & Sushil M. Ghodeswar, JJ.
-
Shyam C. Arora, Adv. for the Petitioner.
-
Saud N. Deshmukh, R. T. Diwate & Suresh W. Munde, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the respondents were former employees of BSNL. Pursuant to a complaint made by an organisation alleging that certain appointments and promotions had been secured on the basis of false caste certificates, BSNL issued articles of charge against the respondents and directed them to obtain caste validity certificates.
Subsequently, the respondents opted for voluntary retirement under the BSNL VRS-2019 Scheme, which was accepted by BSNL. However, BSNL withheld their pension and other retiral benefits, stipulating that the same would be released only upon submission of caste validity certificates.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, seeking release of their pensionary and other retiral benefits. The Tribunal allowed the applications and directed BSNL to release the pensionary benefits as well as the ex gratia amount payable under the VRS Scheme.
On challenge before the High Court, it was observed that the Government Resolution dated 30.04.2016, relied upon by BSNL, could not be construed as having overridden or superseded the provisions of the relevant statute.
High Court Held
The High Court further held that, since the caste claims of the respondents had never been adjudicated during their service tenure, BSNL was not justified in withholding their pensionary benefits. The Court noted that even where an employee’s caste claim is invalidated after retirement, pensionary benefits cannot be denied by the employer.
The Court also found that there was no material on record to establish that the respondents had been appointed against posts reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. Further, BSNL had not forwarded the respondents’ tribe claim proposals to the Caste Scrutiny Committee in accordance with Section 6(3) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000.
The High Court additionally noted that BSNL had failed to point out any statutory provision authorising the withholding of pensionary benefits in the facts of the case.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the order passed by the Tribunal was legal and justified and dismissed the writ petition filed by BSNL.
List of Cases Reviewed
- C. Arumugam v. Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee-II 2024 (2) CWC 851 (High Court of Madras)
- Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira (2017) 8 SCC 670
- Ashabai Bhila Koli @ Ashabai Devman Borse v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [Writ Petition No. 9885 of 2019] and connected petitions, Unreported judgment of this Court, dated 13/03/2020 (para 19) distinguished
- State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava [2013] 8 taxmann.com 654 (SC)/AIR 2013 SC 3383 (para 19) followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira (2017) 8 SCC 670 (para 7)
- C. Arumugam v. Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee-II 2024 (2) CWC 851 (para 7)
- Ashabai Bhila Koli @ Ashabai Devman Borse v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [Writ Petition No. 9885 of 2019, dated 13-3-2020] (para 7)
- Principal General Manager v. State of Maharashtra [SLP (C) No. 10801 of 2026, dated 16-4-2026] (para 10)
- Namdeo v. Secretary [Writ Petition No. 547 of 2021, dated 23-3-2022] (para 10)
- Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 800 of 2026, dated 23-1-2026] (para 10)
- State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava [2013] 8 taxmann.com 654 (SC) (para 15)
- Vinayak Marotrao Mahajan v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur 2026 (2) Mh.L.J. 23 (para 15)
- Ashok Natthuppa Shelgenwar v. Accountant General (A & E) 2023 Mh.L.J. Online 224 (para 16).
The post Pension Can’t Be Withheld Over Pending Caste Validity | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
