PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has ruled that one Sushila Kallimani, who was working as a sweeper at the Sanquelim Municipal Council was eligible for pension under the old pension scheme and directed that the Goa government pay her pension whilst considering her entire tenure of service.
Sushila Kallimani retired from her service as a sweeper with Sanquelim Municipal Council (SMC) on 31.12.2020. At her retirement, she was regularly appointed as a sweeper. By this date, she had put in 36 years of blemishless and uninterrupted service. At her retirement, the SMC and the State authorities paid Sushila a total amount of Rs 612,386 in all as her retiral benefits and pension. Out of this amount Rs 306,193 i.e. 50% was Sushila’s own contribution under the New Pension Scheme (NPS), which according to pleadings before the court “was conveniently applied to her case in defiance of several judicial precedents by the SMC and the State authorities.”
Sushila, with her limited education and finances, pleaded with the authorities for some relief in her old age. She addressed a representation dated 26.10.2021. “Such pleas, however, fell on deaf ears because there was no response, either positive or negative, from SMC and the State authorities, as if a retired sweeper like Sushila did not matter,” the HC observed.
Sushil then addressed a letter dated 01.05.2022 to the High Court explaining her plight in simple words.
The learned AG, told the Court that Sushila was not a “Government Servant either at the time of her initial engagement in 1985 or even after her regularisation in 2011, followed by her retirement in December 2020.”
“Sushila was an employee of SMC, which came into existence only in 2006. He submitted that before that Sushila may have been an employee of Village Panchayat of Sanquelim which no longer exists since 2006. Since her conditions of service were governed by the provisions of Sections 72 and 73 of the Goa Municipalities Act. 1968, read with bylaws of the municipality framed under Section 77 of the said Act,” the AG argued.
The SMC pointed out before the Court that between 1997 and 2000, the panchayat which had engaged Sushila as a daily wager on 15.01.1985, was converted into a Municipal Council. He submitted that on 07.12.2000, the Municipal Council reverted to its status of a Village Panchayat and remained as a Panchayat till 28.04.2006. Finally, in 2006, once again, the Panchayat was converted into a Municipal Council.
“Technically, the Panchayat and the Council are two different employers. Therefore, Sushila or the other 11 employees whose services were regularised in 2010-2011 cannot claim that they were in uninterrupted service from the dates of their initial engagement. He submitted that retiral benefits were paid to Sushila under the NPS, and therefore, there was no question of responding to Sushila’s plea for pension under the OPS,” the Council argued.
