17 petitioners seek parity with aided schools and disclosure of pension fund accumulations
PANAJI
After two retired ayas of the Sanjay Centre for Special Education in Porvorim moved the High Court of Bombay at Goa, alleging irregularities in pay fixation and seeking the implementation of the National Pension Scheme (NPS), 17 serving ayas from the institution have now filed a separate writ petition raising similar grievances.
The petitioners have sought revision of their pay fixation from the date of their initial appointments, payment of consequential arrears, and disclosure of the accumulations in their individual NPS pension accounts.
In the plea, the serving ayas alleged discrimination in pay scales from the time of their appointment and have sought parity with employees in other government-aided schools.
The petition states that when the first two petitioners, Shaila Faterpekar and Subhash Sawant, joined the Sanjay Centre in 2007, they were placed in the pay scale of Rs 2,550-55-2,660-60-3,200 instead of the scale of Rs 5,200-20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs 1,800, under which the minimum basic salary would have been Rs 7,000. This, the petition claimed, resulted in an initial shortfall of Rs 4,440 in their pay.
It further stated that this shortfall continued to affect their salary progression, including under the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission, which fixed the minimum pay at Rs 18,000.
The other petitioners who joined service in 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2021 also raised similar concerns adding they were granted a pay scale of Rs 4,440-7,440 with Grade Pay of Rs 1,300, whereas the minimum salary prescribed under the Seventh Pay Commission with effect from January 1, 2016 was Rs 18,000. This, they alleged, led to a shortfall of Rs 12,260 in their salary at the time of joining service.
Apart from the pay-related grievance, the petition also raised concerns over the implementation of the NPS by the State government from January 1, 2004.
The ayas have stated that deductions have been made from their salaries towards the pension scheme, with the employer required to make an equivalent contribution. However, they expressed apprehension over the investment and accounting of these funds.
The petitioners also claimed they have not been informed of their 16-digit Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN), nor have they been provided details regarding the valuation of investments made from their contributions and the employer’s matching share.
On April 15, retired ayas Karuna Mageshkar and Nayan Naik filed a petition seeking the determination of pension benefits and payment of salary arrears with interest.
The Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar granted circulation of the matter on June 23.
