Partly allowed

Pradip v. Sawaiker v State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2021WP/165/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired District Judge appointed as President of Consumer Forum, sought higher salary. Court directed Director to decide the representation with hearing before dismissing the petition, allowing claim if granted early.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Director to consider the petitioner's representation regarding salary with an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order within one month.

Pradip v. Sawaiker Vs State of Goa, Thr. the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 WP No.165/2021

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 165 OF 2021

¶3

PRADIP V. SAWAIKER...Petitioner
Versus

¶4

STATE OF GOA, THR. THE CHIEF
SECRETARY AND ANR… Respondents

¶5

Mr. M. B. da Costa, Senior Advocate with Ms. Karishma Betquecar,
Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General along with Ms. M. Correia,
Additional Government Advocate for Resp.-State.

¶7

Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ.,&
 M. S. SONAK, J.
 Date : 24th March 2021.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

We have heard Mr. Costa, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate General for the
State.

¶10

2.The petitioner is a retired District Judge who has since been
appointed as the President of the Consumer Redressal Forum, South
Goa by an order dated 30.06.2017 of the Director, Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Goa.

¶11

2 WP No.165/2021

¶12

3.By presenting this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction
on the respondents to pay him salary as admissible to a District Judge
in the super time scale of pay, as revised by the Central
Government/in the scale of pay as determined by the Hon'ble Mr.
Justice E. Padmanabhan (Retired) Commission.

¶13

4.It is found from the writ petition that the petitioner has
submitted a detailed representation before the Director dated
30.07.2020. No decision has been given by the Director on such
representation as yet.

¶14

5.We are of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate
if the Director looks into the representation and gives his decision
first. We, accordingly, dispose of this writ petition with direction to
the Director to consider such representation in accordance with law
upon granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Should the
prayer of the petitioner be not granted, a reasoned order shall be
passed. On the contrary, if the claim of the petitioner is granted,
appropriate benefits be released as early as possible thereafter.

¶15

6.Let such exercise of consideration and disposal of the
representation be completed within one month from date of receipt
of a copy of this order.

¶16

3 WP No.165/2021

¶17

7. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

¶18

 M. S. SONAK, J.CHIEF JUSTICE

¶19

ss

Pradip v. Sawaiker v State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip v. Sawaiker v State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Armancar Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., Vs Dom Francisco Residents Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Sarfraj Huddar Vs Director Department of Urban Development (Municipal Administration) Govt. of Goa and Anr.

Ramkrishna Raut Vs Director Department of Urban Development Municipal Administration, Govt. of Goa and Anr.

Alberto Caetano Gomes and Anr., Vs Carmen De Miranda, and 4 Ors.

V. v. Mohan, Pres. in Judicial Custody at Central Jail, Colvale,Rep. by Shantanu Salgaonkar and Anr. Vs the State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 4 Ors.

Carmen De Miranda Vs the State of Goa Rep. by the Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.