KESHAV K PARAB Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above petition seeks for a writ or direction in a nature of writ of certiorari and quash and set aside the order of superannuation dated 24/02/2001 and also the order dated 28/02/2001 to the extent it orders superannuation of the petitioner.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as an Assistant Carpenter on N.M.R. basis in P.W.D., S.D. II, Work Division-1 (Bldg.) at Mapusa on 1/09/1976 and that he was thereafter regularized on the post of carpenter and subsequently promoted in the year 1997 and confirmed as carpenter on 31/12/1997. It is further his contention that he was served with written order of suspension on 10/08/2000 by the Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Bambolim. It is further his contention that he represented against the said suspension order by an application dated 14/08/2000 and as no reply was received, challenge was made to the said suspension order before the appropriate authority by an appeal preferred on 2/11/2000. It is further his case that he was informed on 24/01/2001 that he was due for retirement on superannuation from Government service as carpenter w.e.f. 28/02/2001. It is further his case that on 28/02/2001, the suspension order was revoked and on the very same day the respondent no.1 invited the petitioner in his office and informed that he stood retired from that day onwards. It was further his case that he could not be superannuated at the age of 58 years as according to him he was entitled to work up to the age of 60 years.

(3.) Shri Bhise, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that prior consent of the Central Government was not obtained for reducing the age of retirement on superannuation to 58 years while framing the Goa State Civil Services (Retirement) Rules, 2000 as the petitioner was working as an employee of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman & Diu. He further submitted that the Goa State Civil Services (Retirement) Rules, 2000 are ultra vires to the extent of reducing the age of superannuation to 58 years to the fundamental rules. He further submitted that as no prior consent of the Central Government was obtained, the petitioner was not entitled to be superannuated at the age of 58 years.