M.L. Patil (Dead) vs The State Of Goa

Shri M.L. Patil (Dead) Through LRs …Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Goa and Anr. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final

judgment and order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the High

Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 961/2015, by

which, though the High Court has allowed the said writ

petition by holding that the respective writ petitioners

Signature Not Verified ought to have been superannuated/retired at the age of 60 Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.05.23 16:07:25 IST Reason: years instead of 58 years, the High Court has refused

arrears of pension and has observed that the pension at 1 the revised rates will become payable only from 1 st

January, 2020, the original writ petitioner has preferred

the present appeal.

2. That the appellant – original writ petitioner of writ petition

No. 961/2015 and others filed the writ petitions before the

High Court challenging the action of the respondents in

superannuating/retiring them at the age of 58 years.

According to them, the retirement age was 60 years. By the

impugned judgment and order, the High Court has held

that the retirement age of the respective original writ

petitioners was 60 years and they were wrongly

superannuated/retired at the age of 58 years. However, as

the respective writ petitioners approached the High Court

belatedly, the High Court has held that none of the writ

petitioners shall be entitled to any salary/back wages for

the period of two extra years they would have got in

service. The High Court has also observed that though the

writ petitioners would be entitled to the pension on the

basis that they continued in service until they attain the

age of 60 years, they would not be entitled to any arrears of

2 pension and the pension at the revised rates will become

payable only from 1st January, 2020.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court to the extent

denying the back wages for the period of two extra years

and observing and directing that original writ petitioner will

not be entitled to any arrears of pension and the pension at

the revised rates will become payable only from 1 st January,

2020, the original writ petitioner of Writ Petition No.

961/2015 has preferred the present appeal.

3. Having heard Shri Rahul Gupta, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the appellant and Shri Ravindra Lokhande,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent –

State of Goa and considering the fact that even by the

impugned judgment and order, the High Court has held

that action of the State Government in requiring the

original petitioners to retire at the age of 58 years or not

permitting them to continue in their service upto the age of

60 years is illegal and null and void, we are of the view that

the High Court has erred in observing that the appellant

will not be entitled to any arrears of pension and the

3 pension at the revised rates will become payable only from

1st January, 2020. As such, the High Court may be right

and/or justified in denying any salary for the period of two

extra years to the writ petitioners if they would have

continued in service, on the ground of delay. However, as

far as the pension is concerned, it is a continuous cause of

action. There is no justification at all for denying the

arrears of pension as if they would have been

retired/superannuated at the age of 60 years. There is no

justification at all by the High Court to deny the pension at

the revised rates and payable only from 1 st January, 2020.

Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court is required to be modified

to the aforesaid extent.

4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

present Appeal Succeeds in Part. The impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court to the extent of

denying any arrears of pension and holding that the

appellant shall be entitled to the pension at the revised

rates only from 1st January, 2020 is hereby quashed and

set aside. It is held and ordered that the appellant –

4 original writ petitioner shall be entitled to pension at the

revised rates from the date he attains the age of 60 years.

Now the arrears accordingly shall be paid to the appellant

within a period of four weeks from today. Present Appeal is

Partly Allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts of the

case, there shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. May 20, 2022 [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

5