The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioners to continue in service until they attained the age of 62 years as per Section 15A of the Goa University Act, 1984, and the impermissibility of recovery of amounts from retired employees as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Ms. A. Agni, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. J. Sawaikar, learned counsel for the Petitioner in both these petitions, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondents in WP No.579 of 2017 and Mr. D. Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondents in WP No.1009 of 2015.

2. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the issues involved in both these petitions are substantially common and therefore, both these petitions may be disposed of by a common judgment and order.

3. In Writ Petition No.579 of 2017, Ms. Agni, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner has made the following three submissions:-

(a) That the retirement of the Petitioner on his attaining the age of 60 years with effect from 30th October 2015 was violative of Section 15A of the Goa University Act, 1984 ( the said Act ) and the Petitioner, being a member of the teaching staff of Goa College of Engineering, which is affiliated to the Goa University ought to have been permitted to continue in service until he attained the age of 62 years i.e. up to 30th October 2017. She relies on Madhuri S. Savaikar Vs State of Goa and others 1 and Mansavi Vadiekar Vs State of Goa and others 2 in support of this submission;

(b) That there was no error whatsoever in the pay fixation of the Petitioner consequent upon the grant of third pay upgradation vide order dated 25th June 2014 and 16th October 2014. She submits that such pay fixation was consistent with the rules then in force and therefore, the Respondents were not justified in reducing the pay and emoluments payable to the Petitioner in the name of correction of nonexistent error. She, therefore, submits that the Petitioner is entitled to restoration of earlier paid emoluments which according to her were correctly fixed by the Respondents themselves;

(c) In any case and without prejudice to the submission at (b) above, Ms. Agni submits that there was no justification for recovering an amount of Rs.95,890/- from the Petitioner, by alleging the same as excess payment. She submits that the Petitioner was a Group C employee and such recovery was made after the Petitioner retired from service. She submits that such a recovery was barred in terms 1 Writ Petition No.375 of 2011 decided on 26th September, 2019 2 Writ Petition No.58 of 2020 decided on 22nd January, 2021 of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Punjab and others Vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334).

4. Ms. Agni, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1009 of 2015 adopted the above submissions and urged that the rule in the said petition also be made absolute.

5. Mr. P. Faldessai and Mr. D. Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocates submitted that neither of the Petitioners were “Teachers” as defined by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and therefore, were ineligible for the benefits of the provisions under Section 15A of the said Act. They pointed out that the AICTE Regulation of 2010 contemplates only three designations of teachers in University and College namely Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. Admittedly, the Petitioners were neither of these and therefore, ineligible to continue in service until they attain the age of 62 years.

6. Mr. Shirodkar pointed out that there was undue delay and laches in the institution of Writ Petition No.579 of 2017 since the Petitioner therein retired on 30th October 2015 and the petition was instituted only on 25th April 2017. He submitted that this is an additional reason as to why the relief should be denied to the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.579 of 2017.

7. The learned Additional Government Advocates pointed out that there was a clear error in pay fixation and there was nothing wrong in Respondents correcting such error. They referred to the affidavits of the Respondents to point out the nature of the error and they relied on the deci