Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4100 OF 2022
Shri M.L. Patil (Dead) Through LRs …Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Goa and Anr. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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
ought to have been superannuated/retired at the age of 60
Signature Not Verified
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
st
the revised rates will become payable only from 1
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
st
payable only from 1 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
st
the revised rates will become payable only from 1 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
st
1 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
st
the revised rates and payable only from 1 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
st
rates only from 1 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