PANAJI
Under mounting judicial pressure, the State government on Friday allowed the superannuation of Public Works Department (PWD) Principal Chief Engineer Uttam Parsekar, who had been serving on his third consecutive extension. Parsekar’s extended tenure formally ends on January 31.
In an order issued on Friday, the government appointed Ad-hoc Chief Engineer Sandip Chodnekar to hold the additional charge of Principal Chief Engineer with effect from February 1, following Parsekar’s superannuation. Chodnekar will continue to discharge his existing duties along with the additional responsibility.
Parsekar, aged 64, was granted his third extension in February 2025 for a period of one year, allowing him to continue in office nearly three years after reaching the age of retirement.
The government’s decision comes in the backdrop of legal challenges mounted by nearly 16 PWD engineers, who have approached the High Court questioning the grant of successive service extensions to Parsekar. In their petition, the engineers have alleged abuse of discretion by the State government, contending that the latest extension, which was valid till January 31, 2026, lacked any exceptional or compelling justification.
The petitioners have further argued that the extensions were in violation of a High Court judgment dated October 14, 2025, which had directed the State to avoid extending the tenure of retiring officers and instead induct younger officers by amending recruitment rules or eligibility norms, if required. The matter is scheduled to come up for hearing next week.
Adding to the controversy, Parsekar is also facing a fresh petition accusing him of favouritism in the awarding of PWD tenders, allegedly causing a loss of around Rs 1,350 crore to the State exchequer. Filed on Thursday by a group of citizens, the petition claims that both tendered and untendered works were awarded to Parsekar’s relatives and a select group of preferred contractors. It also alleges that payments were cleared despite serious irregularities. Parsekar, the Vigilance Department and other authorities have been named as respondents in the case.
