MANINDRA NATH PAL Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties.

(2.) Whether the petitioner stood retired at the age of 60 years, i.e. on 30/11/2003, or at the age of 58 years, i.e. on 30/11/2001 is the moot question in the present petition.

(3.) Challenge in the present petition is to an order dtd. 29/10/2015 (Exhibit P1) and a communication dtd. 16/2/2021 (Exhibit P2) wherein the petitioner is considered as retired on 30/11/2001 instead of 30/11/2003, which, according to the petitioner, is violative of his fundamental rights under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the judgment and order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.159/2005 dtd. 3/8/2015 (Exhibit P-3). Similarly, it is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order and communication as well as decision of the respondents are directly in conflict with Goa (Daman and Diu) Medical Education and Service Rules, 1979 and Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 thereby violating the mandate of Article 309 and 311 of the Constitution of India.