Writ Petition No. 430 of 2003. Case: 1. The All Goa Government Pensioners Association, a Society Registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 under No.227/1981, represented herein by its President, Shri Pascoal Patrick Cardozo, 2. Shri Joao Nascimento Escolastico Araujo, son of Bernardo Araujo, 3. Shri Antonio Sebastiao Dourado Vs 1. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 430 of 2003 |
| Counsel | For the Appellant: Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate and For the Respondent: Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate |
| Judges | S. B. Deshmukh & U. D. Salvi, JJ. |
| Issue | Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 14 |
| Judgement Date | October 15, 2009 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
U.
-
Sagacity of the State''s decision in imposing cut off date as 01.01.2001 for giving benefit of pay fixation on the revised/ interim revised pay scales with fitment weightage of 40 % to only those employees in service as on 01/01/2001 and denying such benefit to all other employees, who resigned, retired, expired or ceased to be in service during the period from 01/01/1996 to 31/12/2000 vide order dated 11/04/2001 is brought in question in the present petition.
-
The petitioner No.1, the All Goa Government''s Pensioner Association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 for the purposes of espousing the cause of the pensioners. Other two petitioners are pensioners, who have retired between 01/01/1996 and 31/12/2000. According to these petitioners, the recommendations of 4th Pay Central Commission came to be accepted and implemented with effect from 01/01/1986; and subsequently when the State of Goa came into existence by virtue of Goa, Daman and Dieu State Organisation Act, 1987, the pay scales of certain posts/ categories of employees were revised; and on the representations made by the Goa government''s employees association, there was a general pay revision resulting in grant of interim revised scales.
-
Later on, the petitioners state, the respondent State accepted the recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission with effect from 01/01/1996 vide orders dated 27.10.1997 and 17.11.1997 with clarification that the revisions/ interim revisions effected after 01.01.1986 shall be ignored for the purpose of determination of the corresponding scales payable as per the recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission. The petitioners further state that the Goa Government''s Employees Association raised demand for protection of the last pay drawn by the Government employees in the revised/ interim revised pay scale as on 01/01/1996 with 40 % fitment weightage; and the respondent State accepted the said demand subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the order dated 11/04/2001. In doing so, the petitioners state, the respondent State excluded the past employees, who had retired during the period 01/01/1996 to 31/12/2000 from the benefit, which would accrue as a result of the pay protection with 40 % fitment weightage in the revised/ interim revised pay scale as on 01/01/1996.
-
The respondent State in order to achieve such exclusion of the said retirees from the benefit of pay protection with 40 % fitment weightage provided for cut off date as on 01.01.2001 and thereby classified the employees in two classes i.e. (i) who retired between 01/01/1996 and 31/12/2000 and (ii) who continued to be in the service on 01.01.2001. To justify this fixation of cut off date and consequent classification of the employees, the respondent State took a view that the employees, who received, retired, expired or ceased to be in service during the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2000 had availed of more beneficial schemes, namely leave encashment facility and Time Bound Promotional Scale, than those who continued to be in service on 01.01.2001.
-
According to the petitioners, the alleged basis for such classification of the employees is not only practically non-existent but cannot form any basis of reasonable classification, which being patently illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, particularly when the sole purpose of order dated 11.04.2001 is to uphold the pay protection to the State''s employees with 40 % fitment weightage as on 01/01/1996 and both the set of employees, who had retired between the period from 01.01.1996 and 31.12.2000 and the employees in service during the same period, had equally enjoyed and availed of leave encashment facility and Time Bound Promotional Scale. According to the petitioners, the later class of employees stand to gain considerably by way of pay protection with 40 % fitment weightage just for the reason of they being in service as on 01.01.2001. Secondly, the petitioners state, the respondent State ignored the fact that the TBPS (Time Bound Promotional Scale) was applicable only to non-gazetted employees and the modifications brought about with (i) leave encashment scheme in place of leave encashment facility and (ii) Assured Career Progression Scheme in place of Time Bound Promotional Scale, were marginal and could never have formed the basis for discrimination.
-
The petitioners further state that financial implications of...
To continue reading
Request your trial