After Supreme Court's Rap, Goa Notifies Pension Rules For Bombay HC Goa Bench Staff In Line With Principal Bench

The Goa government informed the Supreme Court on Friday (November 22) that it has brought the pension payment norms for employees of the Bombay High Court's Goa Bench in line with those of the principal Bench at Mumbai and the Nagpur and Aurangabad benches.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih disposed of a suo moto case concerning the grievances of former employees of the Bombay High Court's Goa Bench over delayed pensionary benefits.

“There is no dispute that now the Rules published on 15th November 2024 are in terms of the draft forwarded by the Chief Justice of the High Court. Our attention is invited to the judgement and order dated 30 July 2024 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in writ petition number 186 and 409 of 2023. It is obvious that the refixation as directed by the High Court in terms of paragraph 41 of the judgement will be in terms of Rules dated 15th November 2024 referred above. The High Court has already granted time of one year to the state government to pay the arrears as directed in paragraph 41 of the aforesaid decision. The state government shall endeavor to pay the arrears as expeditiously as possible and in any event within the outer limit fixed by the High Court”, the Court ordered.

The Supreme Court had last week criticized the State of Goa for notifying altered service rules in the name of the Chief Justice, despite significant deviations from the draft submitted. The court had expressed its shock at this justification and directed the Chief Secretary to explain the changes.

Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the contentious service rules had been superseded, and the newly notified rules aligned with the draft forwarded by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.

Justice Oka noted that the Chief Secretary of Goa had filed an affidavit and tendered an unconditional apology for earlier deviations. The Chief Secretary was present through video conferencing during the proceedings.

The Court observed that the revised rules, published on November 15, 2024, adhered to the draft submitted by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. Referring to the Bombay High Court's judgment dated July 30, 2024, the Supreme Court reiterated that the refixation of pay and payment of arrears should follow the new rules.

The bench concluded that no additional directions were required and disposed of the writ petition.

Background

The case arose from a letter by retired employees of the Goa Bench highlighting delays in pension and retirement benefits, with some retirees awaiting payments for 3-7 years. In April, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance due to reports of financial hardships faced by the retirees, including a suicide linked to prolonged delays.

The Bombay High Court's judgment on July 30, 2024, addressed two writ petitions filed by employees of its Goa Bench. The petitioners sought pay parity with their counterparts at the principal seat in Mumbai and benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad. They argued that their appointments and service conditions were governed by the Bombay High Court Rules of 2000, which applied uniformly across all benches.

The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the Chief Justice's autonomy under Article 229 of the Constitution in determining service conditions for court staff. The court observed that the State of Goa's refusal lacked sufficient justification and violated constitutional principles of judicial independence.

The court directed the State to implement the upgraded pay scales recommended by the Chief Justice and pay arrears amounting to Rs. 6.58 crores within one year.

The State of Goa agreed not to challenge the decision but requested time to implement the financial aspects.

Case no. – WP(C) No. 464/2023

Case Title – Re Pension Benefits For Employees Retd. From High Court Of Bombay At Goa v. State of Goa