Supreme Court Seeks Personal Affidavit On Goa Chief Secretary On Lesser Pay Scale For Staff Of Bombay HC Goa Bench

The Supreme Court today (July 24) sought a response from the Chief Secretary of Goa Government over the non-implementation of directions for pay upgradation given by the Bombay High Court Chief Justice.

The directions for upgrading the pay scale, issued under Article 229 of the Indian Constitution, were meant for Group A and B Secretariat Staff of the Bombay High Court. It was the grievance of the applicants- retired High Court staff (Goa branch) that while the Maharashtra government complied with these directions for the Bombay, Aurangabad, and Nagpur benches, the Goa government rejected them for the Goa bench.The present applicants sought directions to the Goa Government to implement the pay upgradation rules as approved by the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court.

In its Rules notified on June 3 2023, the Goa Government framed rules claiming they were made in the interest of the High Court under Article 229 of the Constitution.

However, the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud pointed out that these rules differ significantly from what was originally submitted to the Goa government by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.

"It appears that the rules which have been notified contain a prefatory statement that the rules have been made in the interest of the High Court, in the exercise of the powers conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution. However, the Rules are completely at variance with what is submitted to the Goa Government under the authority of the Chief Justice."

To address this issue, the Court has ordered the Chief Secretary of Goa to file a personal affidavit explaining the apparent breach of settled law in the decision of Union of India v. SB Vohra.

"In order to furnish the state government with an opportunity to file what prima facie appears to be the breach of the law laid down by this court, we now direct that the proceeding be listed on Monday.

The Chief Secretary shall file a personal affidavit in these proceedings on the next date of listing."

It may be noted that this decision of the Goa Government is under challenge by the High Court staff in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Goa. The next hearing of the case is scheduled for tomorrow. The bench also clarified that it will not restrict the High Court from hearing the pending challenge.

Appearing for the retired employees, the Senior Advocate Atmaram NS Nadkarni along with AOR Salvador Rebello urged the court to take suo motu cognisance over the non-compliance of the State Government. He stressed how the variance in rules will cause pay disparity between the employees of the Goa branch and the remaining branches of the Bombay High Court.

" Look at the funny situation - an employee from Goa will go to Bombay will get a higher pay. Employees from Bombay who come to Goa will get a lower pay, what is this? It's a mockery of the whole system. State Government says we will not listen to the Bombay High Court , an Indian national institute. I think your lordships should take suo motu cognisance."

The Department of Law and Judiciary, Law Division, Goa in a letter dated July 28, 2023, written to the Registrar, Bombay High Court stated that the request from pay scale degradation for the Goa branch of employees 'cannot be considered to, as per the decision of the State Government'.

The Court in its order also observed that the contrary rules framed by the State Government have the potential to adversely affect the retiral benefits of the High Court employees and highlighted the need for the state government to reconsider the issue in light of the decision of UOI v. SB Vohra. In the said decision, the Top Court held that the recommendations made by the Chief Justice of a High Court under Article 229 should be approved by the State and any refusal should be backed by strong reasoning.

"The Rules which have been framed by the Goa Government now would undoubtedly affect the retiral dues of the employees of the High Court. The Course of action which is taken by the State Government is prima facie contrary to the settled position of law. In this context, the attention of the Goa Government has to be drawn to the judgement in Union of India v. SB Vohra 2004 2 SCC 150"

The matter will now be heard next Monday.

Background

The application heard today was filed by intervenors in the Suo Motu Case relating to the lack of pensionary benefits for the retired employees of the Goa branch of the Bombay High Court

The Court had taken 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 had 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 CJI 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.

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