SANDHYA KANEKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek directions to the respondents to regularize their services and appointments on regular basis with retrospective effect. Further, a direction is also sought to order the respondents to extend all the pensionary and/or terminal benefits to them, under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they were initially engaged, on daily wage basis, with respondent No.2-Board. In 1996, three of the persons so engaged as seasonal clerks filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.341 of 1996 before this Court. The said Petition was disposed of based on the affidavit filed by the respondentBoard that the petitioners would be conferred temporary status with effect from 1/11/1999 under the Daily Wagers (Grant of Temporary Status) Scheme of the Government. The order further directed that as and when regular vacancies would arise, the Board shall consider the petitioners and other employees on whom temporary status has been conferred for appointment to regular vacancies subject to relevant Recruitment Rules. Later on, petitioners were conferred the status of temporary employees with retrospective effect from 1/11/1999. On 2/5/2004, the Government granted permission to the respondent-Board to absorb the petitioners against the regular vacant posts. However, respondent No.2 failed to regularize the services of the petitioners even though clear vacancies were existing. The petitioners services were however regularized and they were appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) on regular basis with effect from 1/7/2010. Thereafter in the year 2013, the appointments of the petitioners to the regular posts of LDCs were also confirmed. As the petitioners services were regularized with effect from 1/7/2010, they were not entitled to any pensionary and/or terminal benefits under the Old Pension Scheme nor the New Pension Scheme upon attaining the age of superannuation.

(3.) Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, learned Advocate General for the respondent No.1 and Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2.