Supreme Court of India
SHRI M.L. PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS versus THE STATE OF GOA AND ANR. on 20 May 2022
2022 INSC 622[2022] 3 S.C.R. 362
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
A
SHRI M.L. PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS
v.
THE STATE OF GOA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4100 of 2022)BMAY 20, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Pension – Arrears of pension – Denial of – Orderpassed by the High Court that the retirement age of the writpetitioners was 60 years and they were wrongly superannuated/Cretired at the age of 58 years, however, since they approached theHigh Court belatedly, they would not be entitled to any salary/backwages for the period of two extra years they would have got inservice; that though they would be entitled to the pension, but wouldnot be entitled to any arrears of pension; and that the pension atDthe revised rates would become payable only from 1st January,2020 – On appeal, held: Pension is a continuous cause of action –There is no justification at all for denying the arrears of pension asif they would have been retired/superannuated at the age of 60years – There is no justification at all by the High Court to deny thepension at the revised rates and payable only from 1st January,E2020 – Order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside –Writ petitioner entitled to pension at the revised rates from the datehe attains the age of 60 years and accordingly, arrears would bepaid to them.Partly allowing the appeal, the CourtF
Page 1 of 5
HELD: 1.1 The High Court erred in observing that theappellant would not be entitled to any arrears of pension and thepension at the revised rates will become payable only from 1stJanuary, 2020. As such, the High Court may be right and/orjustified in denying any salary for the period of two extra years toGthe writ petitioners if they would have continued in service, onthe ground of delay. However, as far as the pension is concerned,it is a continuous cause of action. There is no justification at allfor denying the arrears of pension as if they would have beenretired/superannuated at the age of 60 years. There is no H
justification at all by the High Court to deny the pension at therevised rates and payable only from 1st January, 2020, thus, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court to thatextent is quashed and set aside. The appellant-original writpetitioner would be entitled to pension at the revised rates fromthe date he attains the age of 60 years. The arrears would be paidto the appellant within the stipulated period. [Para 3, 4][364-E-H;365-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4100of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2020 of the High Courtof Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.961 of 2015.
Rahul Gupta, Adv. for the Appellants.
Ravindra Lokhande, Abhishek Atrey, Nring Chamwibo Zeliang,Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned finaljudgment and orderdated 11.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Bombayat Goa in Writ Petition No. 961/2015, by which, though the High Courthas allowed the said writ petition by holding that the respective writpetitioner sought to have been superannuated/retired at the age of 60years instead of 58 years, the High Court has refused arrears of pensionand has observed that the pension at the revised rates will become payableonly from 1[st] January, 2020, the original writ petitioner has preferred thepresent appeal.
Page 2 of 5
2. That the appellant – original writ petitioner of writ petition No.961/2015 and others filed the writ petitions before the High Courtchallenging the action of the respondents in superannuating/retiring themat the age of 58 years. According to them, the retirement age was 60years. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has heldthat the retirement age of the respective original writ petitioners was 60years and they were wrongly superannuated/retired at the age of 58years. However, as the respective writ petitioners approached the HighCourt belatedly, the High Court has held that none of the writ petitioners A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Page 3 of 5
Ashall be entitled to any salary/back wages for the period of two extrayears they would have got in service. The High Court has also observedthat though the writ petitioners would be entitled to the pension on thebasis that they continued in service until they attain the age of 60 years,they would not be entitled to any arrears of pension and the pension atthe revised rates will become payable only from 1[st] January, 2020.B
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court to the extent denying the backwages for the period of two extra years and observing and directing thatoriginal writ petitioner will not be entitled to any arrears of pension andthe pension at the revised rates will become payable only from 1[st] January,C2020, the original writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 961/2015 haspreferred the present appeal.
3. Having heard Shri Rahul Gupta, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant and Shri Ravindra Lokhande, learned counselappearing on behalf of the respondent – State of Goa and consideringDthe fact that even by the impugned judgment and order, the High Courthas held that action of the State Government in requiring the originalpetitioners to retire at the age of 58 years or not permitting them tocontinue in their service uptothe age of 60 years isillegal and null andvoid, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in observing thatEthe appellant will not be entitled to any arrears of pension and the pensionat the revised rates will become payable only from 1[st] January, 2020. Assuch, the High Court may be right and/or justified in denying any salaryfor the period of two extra years to the writ petitioners if they wouldhave continued in service, on the ground of delay. However, as far asthe pension is concerned, it is a continuous cause of action. There is noFjustification at all for denying the arrears of pension as if they wouldhave been retired/superannuated at the age of 60 years. There is nojustification at all by the High Court to deny the pension at the revisedrates and payable only from 1[st] January, 2020. Under the circumstances,the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is requiredGto be modified to the aforesaid extent.
Page 4 of 5
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent Appeal Succeeds in Part. The impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court to the extent of denying any arrears of pensionand holding that the appellant shall be entitled to the pension at the revised H
rates only from 1[st] January, 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. It isheld and ordered that theappellant – original writ petitioner shall be entitledto pension at the revised rates from the date he attains the age of 60years. Now the arrears accordingly shall be paid to the appellant withina period of four weeks from today. Present Appeal is Partly Allowed tothe aforesaid extent. In the facts of the case,there shall be no order as tocosts.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal partly allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Page 5 of 5
Loading citations and judicial treatment…