Supreme Court Shocked At Goa Govt Notifying HC Service Rules Different From Chief Justices' Draft, Asks Chief Secretary To Appear

The Supreme Court on Thursday (November 14) pulled up the State of Goa for notifying service rules for employees of Bombay High Court at Goa in the name of the HC Chief Justice which differ significantly from what was originally submitted to the Goa government by the Chief Justice.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih noted that the Chief Secretary of the state justified this conduct in his affidavit and directed him to appear before the court through video conferencing to give his explanation for the incorporation of altered Rules.

“The Chief Secretary has justified the act of framing Rules knowing fully well that the said Rules are not in terms of the Draft Rules submitted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The Rule have been published with the recital that they have been made by the Honorable Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. We are really shocked to know that instead of withdrawing the Rules the Chief Secretary of the state has made an attempt to justify the same. We therefore direct the chief secretary of the state to personally remain present in this court through video conferences next Friday to explain how the recital which we have quoted above has been incorporated in the body of the Rules”, the Court stated.

The Court was hearing a suo moto case concerning grievances from former employees of the Bombay High Court's Goa bench regarding delayed pensionary benefits.

The Court noted that the Goa Government's notification of the High Court of Bombay at Goa Officers and the Members of the Staff on the Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2023 deviated from the draft Rules submitted by the Chief Justice of the HC.

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, had taken suo moto cognizance of a letter from former employees of the Goa bench reporting delays in pension and other retirement benefits, with some employees awaiting payment even 3-7 years post-retirement. The Court's intervention was prompted by concerns of financial hardship, including a reported suicide linked to prolonged pension delays.

The directions for upgrading the pay scale, issued by the Bombay HC Chief Justice were meant for Group A and B Secretariat Staff of the Bombay High Court. It is the grievance of the 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.

“If you wanted to publish the Rules you should have published it as it is. You cannot modify the Rules and publish it in the name of the Chief Justice. In the affidavit brazenly the Chief Secretary has justified the conduct. We cannot ignore the manner in which you have treated the judiciary. This is something atrocious. The only way is that you follow the Draft Rules sent by the High Court”, Justice Oka said, criticizing the affidavit submitted by the Chief Secretary.

Advocate Abhay Anturkar for the state requested time to comply with the Court's directive.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also appeared for the state, stating that he did not defend the actions of the State Government or the alterations in the Rules.

Justice Oka said that the State's actions necessitated consequences. He remarked, “The Chief Secretary needs to learn a lesson.”

The Court in July had noted the inconsistencies in the notification issued on June 3, 2023, which claimed to follow the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. The Court had emphasized that this notification was “prima facie contrary to law” and appeared to misrepresent the Chief Justice's authority. The Supreme Court had hoped that the situation would be rectified following the submission of a personal affidavit by the Chief Secretary. However, Justice Oka expressed disappointment that the affidavit filed on July 25, 2024, justified the Rule alterations rather than addressing the Court's concerns.

Background

The case stems from longstanding grievances raised by retired employees of the Bombay High Court's Goa bench. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, had taken suo moto cognizance of a letter from former employees of the Goa bench reporting delays in pension and other retirement benefits, with some employees awaiting payment even 3-7 years post-retirement. The Court's intervention was prompted by concerns of financial hardship, including a reported suicide linked to prolonged pension delays.

In July, the Supreme Court sought the Chief Secretary's response to alleged non-compliance with service benefits that had been approved by the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution. Retired employees argued that Goa's deviation from these rules led to pay disparities between staff at the Goa bench and those at other benches, namely in Bombay, Aurangabad, and Nagpur.

During the proceedings in July, the Court had underscored that the Rules notified by the Goa Government diverged significantly from the Draft Rules, creating disparities in retiral benefits. It noted that this deviation had occurred without the necessary consultations, breaching the constitutional framework governing the judiciary's administrative autonomy.

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

Click Here To Read/Download Order