Case Title:
Shri M.L Patil Vs The State of Goa and Anr
Date:
May 20th, 2022
Bench:
Justice M.R. Shah
Justice B.V Nagarathna
Parties:
Appellant – Shri M.L Patil
Respondent – State of Goa
Subject
An appeal was filed by the writ petitioners against the order passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa which stated that the retiring of writ petitioners at the age of 58 instead of 60 years was not right but they shall be entitled to a pension at revised rates payable only from January 1st, 2020.I j l k
Overview
- The appellants were dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
- A Writ Petition No. 961/2015 was filed by the appellants aggrieved of retiring them at the age of 58 instead of 60 and refusing the payment of arrears of pension.
- The High Court of Bombay at Goa partly allowed the said writ petition by stating that the writ petitioners should have been retired at the age of 60 and not 58 but refused the arrears of pension and stated that the pension at revised rates will become payable only from January 1st, 2020.
- Therefore, the current appeal was filed by the writ petitioners against the above-given order of the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Issues raised
Whether the High Court was right at holding that the writ petitioners shall be entitled to a pension at revised rates payable only from 1st January 2020.
Whether the arrears of pension can be denied on the grounds of delay?
Judgment Analysis
The Hon’ble Court observed the following:
- The High Court had already held that the retirement age was 60 years and the appellant was wrongly retired at the age of 58 years.
- The High Court was wrong in observing that the appellant will not be entitled to any of the arrears of the pension and that the pension at revised rates will become payable only from January 1st, 2020.
- As far as the pension is concerned, it is a continuous cause of action.
- There is no justification for denying arrears of pension at revised rates and payable only from January 1st, 2020.
- The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court required to be modified.
Conclusion
The Court concluded by partly allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned judgment provided by the High Court holding that the appellant shall be entitled to a pension at the revised rate only from 1st January 2020. The appellant was entitled to a pension at revised rates from the date he attains the age of 60 years. The arrears had to be paid to the appellant within four weeks of the judgment. The pension is a continuous cause of action and thereby arrears can not be denied on the ground of delay.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
