Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Of Former Bombay HC(Goa Bench) Employees' Letter On Lack Of Pensionary Benefits
The Supreme Court on Monday took suo motu cognisance of a letter written to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud by former employees of the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court concerning the lack of pensionary benefits provided to them despite the lapse of 3-7 years of retirement. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala appointed Advocate Mahfooz A Nazki...
The Supreme Court on Monday took suo motu cognisance of a letter written to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud by former employees of the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court concerning the lack of pensionary benefits provided to them despite the lapse of 3-7 years of retirement. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala appointed Advocate Mahfooz A Nazki as the amicus curiae in the matter.
Some of the former employees of the Bombay High Court's seat at Goa addressed a communication on the basis of which these suo motu proceedings were registered. The grievance of the employees is that they were only in receipt of provisional pension and despite the lapse of 3 to 7 years pursuant to their retirement, they had not received either commutation of pension or other benefits till date. A communication was addressed to the Chief Justice of India on which a report was called from the Bombay High Court. The employees highlighted that one of the former employees was driven to suicide as a result of the mental stress occasioned by the delayed pension.
In view of the contents of the letter, the court stated that urgent action was required both by the States of Maharashtra and Goa in conjunction with the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for rectifying the grievance at the earliest. The bench ordered :
"Notice shall be issued to the Registrar General of the High Court of Bombay returnable in two weeks. The registry shall also cause a copy of the present order together with the underlying communication of the employees to be served on the standing counsels for the States of Maharashtra and Goa."
There seems to a dispute between the States of Maharashtra and Goa regarding who should bear the pensionary liability of employees of the Goa Bench, the CJI noted during the hearing.
Case Title: Re Pension Benefits for Employees Retired from High Court of Bombay At Goa v. State of Goa And Ors. WP(C) No. 464/2023