MANMOHAN J POROBO DESSAI Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed on temporary basis pending selection of suitable candidates from the Employment Exchange to the post of Assistant Medical Officer on 9-8-1962 in the pay scale of Rs. 335-15-425. According to the petitioner, the pay of Assistant Medical Officer was covered by letter N and carried pay of Rs. 483. 33, but he was paid in the scale of Rs. 335-15-425. On representations made by various employees, the Government considered the cases of various persons holding absorbed posts and fixed their pay in terms of The Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbed Employees) Act, 1965, (hereinafter called the said Act) and The Goa, Daman Diu (Absorbed Employees Conditions of Service) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter called the said Rules ). By order dated 23-3-1988 the Government refixed the pay of Dr. R. S. Narvenkar at Rs. 531. 66. Likewise, the pay of one Antonio Pedro Crasto who was appointed against the absorbed post on 10-5-1963 was also protected. The petitioner who retired from service on 31-8-1987 approached the Court in the year 1993 claiming protection of pay and re-fixation of his pay. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks directions commanding the respondents to fix the petitioners pay on the date of his appointment under letter N corresponding to Rs. 433. 33 and thereafter fix the same considering the post as an absorbed post and give to the petitioner all consequential benefits including the revision in pay recommended by the various Pay Commissions with all arrears and consequential benefits. No return was filed by the respondents.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri N. K. Sawaikar, appearing on behalf of petitioner, stated, that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Medical Officer on 7-12-1961. This submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is not supported by the averments made in the petition and besides that no order has been placed before this Court in order to suggest that the petitioner was appointed on 7-12-1961. What is stated in the petition is that the name of the petitioner was gazetted in the Official Gazette on 7-12-1961 but he was appointed to the post of Assistant Medical Officer vide order dated 9-8-1962, which is at Exhibit A at page 17 of the petition. This contention was obviously placed by the Advocate for the petitioner in order to suggest that the petitioner was a pre-liberation employee which would qualify him to be an absorbed employee under the said Act.

(3.) IN the petition parity is claimed on the basis of the case of Dr. R. S. Narvenkar and Shri Antonio Pedro Crasto and relying upon judgment of this Court in (Shri Renato Maria Merces Rego Fernandes v. The Government of Goa), Writ Petition No. 77/1991. Advocate for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the petitioner is to be treated as absorbed employee working against absorbed post and as such the petitioner is entitled to protection of his initial pay under letter N which corresponds to Rs. 433. 33.