Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
M.S. Sonak, Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.
All Goa Government Pensioners Association & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Government Of Goa & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 835/2017
Decided On : 05-09-2022
Mandamus - Premature Retirement of Government Employees - Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganization Act, 1987 - Section 60(6)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, an association representing prematurely retired Goa Government employees, sought writ of mandamus to pay monetary benefits to prematurely retired pensioners as if they continued employment till age 60. The respondents argued that the petition lacked particulars and vagueness in reliefs applied.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that several Government employees entitled to continue in service until age 60 were retired at 58, in breach of Section 60(6) of the Reorganization Act. The court referred to its decision in Laxman Chavan and the Supreme Court's modification in M. L. Patil, granting relief to pensioners but denying back wages for delay in filing petitions.
Issues: The issue revolved around the legality of prematurely retiring Government employees before the age of 60 and the entitlement to pension and arrears.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if employees were appointed before 30.05.1987 and entitled to continue in service until age 60, their premature retirement at 58 was unjustified. The court granted the petitioners liberty to furnish details of prematurely retired employees for consideration by the appropriate authority.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute, granting the petitioners liberty to submit details of prematurely retired employees for review by the appropriate authority, with a directive to extend benefits if covered by the decisions in Laxman Chavan and M. L. Patil.
JUDGMENT
M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. S. G. Desai, learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Ms. A. Gaude for the petitioners and Mr. Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petitioners, who claim to be an association representing the interests of prematurely retired Goa Government employees, have instituted this petition seeking the following reliefs:
"A. For writ of mandamus or a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order, writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, commanding/directing the Respondent State Government to pay all monetary or other benefits to prematurely retired pensioners, family pensioners, as if employee is continued with employment till he attains the age of 60 years of employee concern, and pay such monetary benefits to prematurely retired pensioners family pensioners along with the arrears from the date of their premature retirement till the writ is passed within 30 days from the date of the writ.
B. For any other appropriate writ, direction, order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not specifically prayed for yet available in fact and circumstances of the case.''
3. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, submits that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Laxman J. Chavan & Ors. v. Chief Secretary, State of Goa & Ors. - 2020 (5) MLJ 428 as modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. L. Patil (dead), through LRs v. State of Goa & Ors. - 2022 SCC (SC) 685. Mr. Desai submits that the issue is also covered in Zilo Zo & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors. - MANU/MH/0655/2011.
4. Mr. Desai submits that the petitioners must be granted the reliefs as prayed for, considering the law laid down in Laxman Chavan (supra), Zilo Zo (supra) and M. L. Patil (supra) .
5. Mr. Faldessai learned Additional Government Advocate states that the decisions relied upon by Mr. Desai will have to be followed, provided the cases of the retired Government employees whose cause the petitioners claim to espouse are indeed identical to the petitioners in Laxman Chavan (supra), Zilo Zo (supra) and M.L. Patil (supra). He points out that in this case, the petitioners have not bothered to state any particulars about the Government employees whose cause they seek to espouse. He points out that even the prayer clause is entirely vague. For these reasons, he submits that no relief may be granted in this petition
6. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
7. There is substance in Mr. Faldessai's contention about the absence of particulars and the vagueness in the reliefs applied.
However, at the same time, it does appear that several Government employees, entitled to continue in service until they attain the age of 60 years, were retired at the age of 58. These were employees appointed before the appointed date, i.e. 30.05.1987, as provided under the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganization Act, 1987 (Reorganization Act).
8. Section 60(6) of the Reorganization Act reads as follows:-
"60(6) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect, on or after the appointed day, the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to the determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Goa or the Union:
Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day to the case of any person referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government.''
9. Considering the above provisions and several precedents on the subject, this Court, in Laxman Chavan (supra) , disposed of Writ Petition Nos.439 of 2014, 961 of 2015, 453, 461 and 569 of 2016 on 11.02.2020. The operative portion in para 65 reads as follows:
"(a) We declare that the action of the State Government in requiring t
The main legal point established is that prematurely retiring Government employees entitled to continue in service until age 60, in breach of statutory provisions, warrants consideration for pension ....
Point of Law : It is clear like a noon day that the retiral dues of an employee like petitioner cannot be allowed to withhold because the documents were not received by any department from other depa....
Delay in filing a writ petition can bar claims for relief, especially in service matters, as established by the principles of delay and laches.
The court upheld the government's policy decision to set a cut-off date for extending monetary benefits to retirees, affirming that such classifications are permissible under constitutional provision....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of delay and laches in seeking relief after retirement, emphasizing that such claims should be made within a reasonable time and that....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefits of pension to daily wagers should be calculated from the date of their initial appointments, as per the Government Resolution dat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
