Govt must decide pension for prematurely retired staff: Bombay HC

PANAJI: After finding that several government employees entitled to continue in service until they turned 60 were prematurely retired at the age of 58, the high court of Bombay at Goa directed the All Goa Government Pensioner's Association to submit a representation accompanied by a detailed chart with names and other information of such employees to the state's finance and accounts departments within two months.
It subsequently directed the state to complete scrutinising the chart within four months of receiving it and to convey to the association which employees are entitled to relief and which are not.
The association had approached the high court in the interest of prematurely retired Goa government employees seeking an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the state to pay all monetary or other benefits to prematurely retired pensioners as if they continued to be in employment till they attained the age of 60, and to also pay arrears from the date of their premature retirement.
The court observed that the employees were all appointed before May 30, 1987 - when the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987, was enforced - and that their service conditions entitled them to continue working until they attained the age of 60 years.
"... there was no justification in retiring such employees upon their reaching the age of 58 years, in the absence of compliance with the provisions of Section 60(6) of the Reorganisation Act. However, the question is whether the petitioners indeed represent the cause of such prematurely retired government employees," said the division bench comprising Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Bharat P Deshpande.
"Suppose the appropriate authority finds that the cases of the employees whose details have been set out in the chart (to be submitted by the Government Pensioner's Association) are indeed covered by the law laid down in Laxman Chavan and M L Patil (judgments), the respondents are directed to extend such employees the same benefit that was extended in Laxman Chavan (judgment) as modified by the Supreme Court in M L Patil (judgment)," the court stated.
"However, suppose the appropriate authority finds that cases of the employees or some of the employees are not covered, it should communicate this decision to the petitioners along with brief reasons indicating why the employees are not covered."
It directed the appropriate authority to complete the exercise as expeditiously as possible, and not later than four months from the date of receipt of the representation, and said that in the absence of any details in the petition, it would be difficult to pass any specific orders granting specific relief to the retired employees.