Back
2008 Supreme(Bom) 1765
BOMBAY HIGH COURT AT PANAJI, GOA
A.P. DESHPANDE & N.A. BRITTO, JJ.
Shri Gopal Pal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Goa & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petitions Nos. 70/2003, 315/2008 and 408/2002
Decided on: 18th December, 2008
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. N. Vaze, and Mr. R.S. Parshekar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate and Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1; Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General and Mr. A. Kamat, Addl. Govt. Advocate, for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
The Corporation has the autonomy to frame its own rules for employee superannuation and is not bound by the decision of the State Government regarding retirement age.
Headnote:
Retirement Rules - Goa Tourism Development Corporation - Goa State Civil Services (Retirement) Rules, 2000 - The judgment discusses the application of Retirement Rules and the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation in the context of superannuation age of employees. It interprets the intention behind the adoption of service rules and the impact of the amendment to Rule 3 raising the retirement age from 58 to 60 years.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions involve employees seeking relief against superannuation based on the Goa State Civil Services (Retirement) Rules, 2000 and the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The court considered the adoption of service rules, the impact of the amendment to Rule 3, and the disparity in retirement age between government employees and Corporation employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Corporation consciously decided not to adopt the amendment raising the retirement age to 60 years and continued to adhere to the unamended Retirement Rules of 2000, which prescribed the retirement age as 58 years. It held that the Corporation is not bound by the decision of the State Government and dismissed the petitions, ruling that there is no merit in the claims.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of superannuating employees based on the Retirement Rules of 2000 and the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, and the disparity in retirement age between government employees and Corporation employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the Corporation's conscious decision not to adopt the amendment raising the retirement age to 60 years, the intention behind the adoption of service rules, and the Corporation's autonomy to frame its own rules for employee superannuation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the Corporation's decision to continue the retirement age at 58 years is justified and there is no merit in the claims.
A.P. Deshpande, J.
As a common question of law is involved in these petitions, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
2. Issue Rule in Writ Petition No. 315/2008. Taken up for final hearing by the consent of parties along with the connected writ petitions.
3. A few facts that are relevant for adjudicating the issues involved in these petitions are narrated herein below separately in each of the petitions.
WRIT PETITION NO. 70/2003 :
The petitioner was initially a State Government employee who was sent on deputation to the Goa Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., ('Corporation' for short) in the year 1987 and came to be permanently absorbed in services of the Corporation with effect from 1.4.1989. The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus against respondent No. 1 not to superannuate him till completion of age of 60 years.
WRIT PETITION NO. 315/2008 :
Petitioner No. 1, in this petition, is the Employees Union by name "Goa Tourism Development Corporation Employees Union" which claim to be voicing the grievance of its members in a representative capacity in the matter of age of retirement. Petitioner No. 2 also claims that the age of retirement of employees of respondent No. 1-Corporation ought to be 60 years and as petitioner No. 2 is to attain age of 60 years on 6.9.2009, it is prayed that he be continued in service till then. This petition has been filed seeking parity with the employees working under the State Government. in view of raising of age of retirement of Government servants from 58 to 60 years in view of the amendment to Rule 3 of the Goa State Civil Services (Retirement) Rules, 2000. The amendment has been brought into force with effect from 23.3.07. The petitioner claims that the said amendment ought to be made applicable to the employees of respondent No. 1-Corporation despite a contrary resolution having been passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors dated 26.12.2007. The Resolution is also challenged and a prayer for quashing of the same is made.
WRIT PETITION NO. 408/2002 :
The petitioner was initially appointed as Plumber and was an employee of the State Government. After the formation of respondent No. 1-Corporation, he was sent on deputation and came to be permanently absorbed in the services of respondent No. 1 Corporation in the year 1987. The petitioner came to be superannuated with effect from 30th April, 2002 as he had attained the age of 58 years and this petition has been filed claiming a right to superannuate on completion of 60 years of age.
4. Thus, in Writ Petitions No. 70/03 and 408/02, the petitioners have been made to retire in accordance with the Retirement Rules of 2000 which did provide age of superannuation to be 58 years. Whereas the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 315/2008, claim that the decision taken by the State Government vide Notification dated 23.3.07 amending Rule 3 and raising the age of retirement to 60 years ought to be made applicable to the employees of respondent No. 1-Corporation as well.
4A. The question that falls for consideration in Writ Petitions No. 70/03 and 408/02 is –
Whether the action on the part of the respondent No. 1-Goa Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., superannuating the petitioners on attaining age of 58 years under the Amended Retirement Rules of 2000, is legal or otherwise?
Whereas it Writ Petition No. 315/08 the question would be –
Whether respondent No. 1-Corporation is justified in superannuating the petitioner and the other similarly situate employees, on completion of 58 years of age, on the basis of a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of respondent No. 1-Corporation, deviating from the age of retirement as provided under the Retirement Rules of 2000 applicable to the Government employees?
5. Prior to the formation of the State of Goa, it was an Union Territory and while being an Union Territory, the service conditions of the employees were governed by the Fundamental Rules and to be precise,
