VENCTEXA X SINAI SUCTANCAR Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition by a Senior citizen, who was retired from the respondent's service long ago, exposed a lack of seriousness, with which the grievances of retired employees are looked into.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner started working as a clerk of Communidade on 15. 2. 1952 and he last served in communidade of Kundaim for 7 years. In the year 1977, some disciplinary proceedings were started against the petitioner and he was transferred to Communidade of Nerul, but the petitioner proceeded on sick leave. Eventually he was directed to report for medical fitness test. He was declared unfit for any service by the Medical Board on 13. 7. 1977 and therefore, stood retired from that date. The disciplinary proceedings against him were not completed and it is not in dispute that the said action was terminated long ago. The petitioner's pension case was thereafter, processed only in the year 1985 and on 1. 5. 1985, the petitioner was directed to be paid pension. His pension case was dealt with in accordance with Article 435 of the Estatuto Do Functionalismo ultramarin, which enables increase in period of service by one-fifth period of service rendered by the pensioner in province other than his native province. The petitioner seems to have been paid pension accordingly.

(3.) THE petitioner, however, claimed that his case should have been dealt with under Article 324 and 446 of the Estatuto Do functionalismo Ultramarin, rather than Article 435 and, therefore, made several representations to several authorities including the Ombudsman. The Authorities, however, rejected all his representations. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court praying for a direction commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioner extraordinary pensionary benefits computing his service as 36 years in terms of 324 and 446 of the Estatuto Do Functionalismo Ultramarin from the date of petitioner's retirement with interest @ Rs. 15 % p. a. till payment.