the goan I network
PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has ruled that the Government of Goa’s decision to arbitrarily reduce the retirement age for government servants from 60 years to 58 years by the then Parrikar government, during his first term back in the year 2000 was illegal and null and void.
The division bench of Justice MS Jawalkar and MS Sonak, however, ruled that the aggrieved retirees will not be entitled to wages lost but only to enhanced pension with effect from January 2020.
“We declare that the action of the State Government in requiring the petitioners to retire at the age of 58 years or not permitting them to continue in their service up to the age of 60 years was illegal, null and void,” the High Court ruled.
“However, notwithstanding the aforesaid declaration, none of the petitioners will be entitled to any salary/back wages for the period of two extra years they would have got in service, mainly on the ground of delay with which most of the petitions were instituted; we however declare that the petitioners will be entitled to the pension on the basis that they continued in service until they attain the age of 60 years,” the High Court ruled.
More than 200 employees who were forcibly retired between 31 May 2000 and 30 November 2004 when the reduced age of superannuation was in force, some of whom have since breathed their last had filed a bunch of petitions challenging their superannuation.
The petitioners were inducted into service prior to the appointed day ie 30 May 1987, as provided under the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 (Reorganisation Act), a parliamentary enactment, by which the State of Goa and the Union Territory of Daman and Diu came into being and the the age of superannuation for the various posts to which they were appointed was 60 years.
However, they were made to retire at the age of 58 which they said, was in violation of the proviso to Section 60(6) of the Reorganisation Act which provides that the conditions of service applicable
immediately before the appointed day, shall not be varied to the disadvantage of the employees appointed prior to the appointed day, except with the approval of the Central Government.
“The State Government was not entitled to vary the conditions of service to their disadvantage, except with the previous approval of the Central Government. The right to continue in service until the age of 60 years was, undoubtedly, a condition of service applicable to the petitioners in these petitions. By requiring the petitioners to retire at the age of 58 years, the State Government has, therefore, varied to the disadvantage of these Petitioners their conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day,” the High Court ruled.
“Accordingly, the action of the State Government in requiring the Petitioners to retire at the age of 58 years or preventing them from continuing in service until they attained age of 60 years, was illegal, ultra vires, null and void, taking into consideration the proviso to Section 60(6) of the Reorganisation Act,” the High Court decreed.
However, employees of other government departments pointed out that it was only teachers who were given the benefit while employees of other government departments who too were prematurely retired at the age of 58 years and not permitted to continue in service until the age of 60 years.
“This was clearly a case of hostile discrimination practised,” the advocate argued.
Earlier in a case filed by a group of teachers led by one Zilo Zo the High Court had ruled that the premature, forcible retirement of teachers was illegal leading to the government to extend benefits to all teachers who retired prematurely.
There is material on record which suggests that the State Government, on its own, has extended the benefit of revised pension to the employees identically placed… The State Government has itself acknowledged the discrimination meted out to various sets of employees. Taking into account all these circumstances, we cannot say that the petitioners should be denied the reliefs, at least in the moulded form, by way of revision in the pension and pensionary benefits,” the High Court said.
