Disposed

Maria Eduarda Menezes v. State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2024MCA/121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Provedoria employees sought implementation of 7th Pay Commission scales from 01.01.2016, contending Provedoria is a Government department; benefits were extended from 01.11.2018. The Court granted liberty to represent to the State, which was directed to decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to make representation to the State within a month; State directed to consider and dispose of it within three months of receipt.

Maria Eduarda Menezes Vs State of Goa, Thr… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

901 MCA-121-24,WP-1074-1080-24.DOC

¶2

Jose

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.121 OF 2024 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1076 OF 2019

¶6

MARIA EDUARDA MENEZES … Applicant/ Petitioner

¶7

Versus STATE OF GOA, THR. THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS. ... Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.1074 OF 2019

¶10

VISHWAS K. NAYAK … Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA, THR. THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS. ... Respondents

¶11

WITH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO.1075 OF 2019

¶13

SUKANTI M. KHOLKAR … Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA, THR. THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS. ... Respondents

¶14

WITH

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO.1077 OF 2019

¶16

KHUSHALI G. P. DESSAI … Petitioner

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

16^th April 2024

¶19

901 MCA-121-24,WP-1074-1080-24.DOC

¶20

Versus STATE OF GOA, THR. THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS. ... Respondents

¶21

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1078 OF 2019 MAMATA M. NAIK … Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA, THR. THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1079 OF 2019 SAVIO CLAUDIO MIGUEL MENDONCA … Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA, THR. THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS. ... Respondents

¶22

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1080 OF 2019

¶23

APEKSHA P. PAWAR … Petitioner

¶24

Versus STATE OF GOA, THR. THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS. ... Respondents

¶25

Mr Parag Rao with Mr Ajay Menon, Advocates for the Petitioners . Mr D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr Deep Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State in WP No.1076/2019 and MCA No.121/2024 .

¶26

Mr D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr S.P. Munj, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State in WP No.1074/2019 .

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

16^th April 2024

¶29

901 MCA-121-24,WP-1074-1080-24.DOC

¶30

Mr D. Pangam, Advocate General with Ms Sapna Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State in WP No.1075/2019 . Mr D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr Tukaram Gawas, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State in WP No.1077/2019 . Mr D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr Suhas Parab, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State in WP No.1078/2019 . Mr D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr Geetesh Shetye, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State in WP No.1079/2019 . Mr D. Pangam, Advocate General with Ms Akshata Bhat, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State in WP No.1080/2019 .

¶31

CORAM: M.S. SONAK & VALMIKI MENEZES, JJ. DATED: 16^th April 2024

¶32

P.C.:

¶33

1. Heard Mr Parag Rao who appears with Mr Ajay Menon for the Petitioners. Mr D. Pangam, learned Advocate General appears with Mr S.P. Munj, Ms Sapna Mordekar, Mr Deep Shirodkar, Mr Tukaram Gawas, Mr Suhas Parab, Mr Geetesh Shetye and Ms Akshata Bhat, Additional Government Advocates, for the Respondents.

¶34

2. The main issue involved in this petition was the implementation of recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission to the employees of Institute of Public Assistance (Provedoria).

¶35

3. The Petitioners contend that Provedoria is nothing but a Department of the State Government and therefore, the benefit of the 7th Pay Scales should even extend to its employees at par with employees of other Government Departments.

¶36

Page 3 of 5

¶37

16^th April 2024

¶38

901 MCA-121-24,WP-1074-1080-24.DOC

¶39

4. The record shows that the benefit of the 7th Pay Scales has been extended to the employees of the Provedoria effective from 01.11.2018. The Petitioners however contend that such benefits should even extend to them effective from 01.01.2016 because this was the date from which such benefits were extended to the employees of all other Government Departments.

¶40

5. Dealing with an almost similar contention, this Court, by its Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2024 in Writ Petition No.481/2022 had granted the Petitioners there liberty to represent to the Government and the Government was directed to dispose of such representation within three months.

¶41

6. Therefore, by adopting the same approach to this matter, we grant the Petitioners liberty to make detailed representation to the Government within a month from today, seeking implementation of the 7th Pay Scales/benefits from 01.01.2016 instead of 01.11.2018. If such representation is made within a month from today, we direct the State Government to consider such representation in accordance with law and on its own merits and dispose it of within three months of the receipt of last of such representations. The State Government must convey its decision to the Petitioners within this period of three months. In case the Petitioners are not satisfied with the decision, it is open for them to pursue such remedies as may be available to them.

¶42

7. All contentions of all parties are expressly left open to be decided by the State Government in the first instance.

¶43

Page 4 of 5

¶44

16^th April 2024

¶45

901 MCA-121-24,WP-1074-1080-24.DOC

¶46

8. With the above direction, all these petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order for costs. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶47

9. The Miscellaneous Applications do not survive the disposal of these petitions. Accordingly, even the Miscellaneous Applications are disposed of.

¶48

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶49

M.S. SONAK, J.

¶50

JOSE FRANCISCO DSOUZA Digitally signed by JOSE FRANCISCO DSOUZA Date: 2024.04.16 15:38:59 +05'30'

¶51

Page 5 of 5 16^th April 2024

Maria Eduarda Menezes v. State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maria Eduarda Menezes v. State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Goa Rivers Sand Protectors Network, Thr. Its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares Vs Parimal Rai and 4 Ors.

Pradip Narayan Velip Vs State of Goa through Public Prosecutor and 4 Ors.

The Goa Rivers Sand Protectors Network, Thr. Its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares Vs Parimal Rai and 4 Ors.

Mamata M. Naik., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Birla Furukawa Fibre Optics Private Limited Thr Prahlad Ray Somani and Anr. vs National Faceless Assessment Centre and 2 Ors.

Savio Claudio Miguel Mendonca., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.