DAMASO COTA Vs. DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved herein relates to the ambit and scope of the term "absorbed post" occurring in the Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbed Employees) Act, 1965 (the Act of 1965 ). Facts for raising the question are thus :-The petitioner was appointed on 1-4-1952 as Assalariado" (daily wager) in the erstwhile Administration of Portuguese. On 19-12-1961 Goa got liberated from the Rule of Portuguese. On 27-12-1961 the institution where the petitioner was working was abolished. On 28-1-1963, he was appointed as Surveillance Worker, (subsequently designated as Basic Health Worker) in the National Malaria Irradication Service. After attaining the age of superannuation on 1-1-1985, the petitioner retired.

(2.) THE petitioner, claimed that he is entitled to the benefit of the service which he has rendered under the erstwhile Portuguese Administration in view of provisions under the Act of 1965 which came into force w. e. f. 1-2-1966. Undisputedly, there is no express order absorbing the petitioner in the post of Surveillance Worker which he held from 28-1-1963. Even otherwise, there is no protection granted to him of the then existing pay as defined under sub-clause (c) of Clause 2 of the Rules known as the Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbed Employees Conditions of Service) Rules, 1965. Apart from the delay and laches, the controversy revolves around the term "absorbed post.

(3.) THE definition as provided under Clause (b) of section 2 of the Act of 1965 which reads thus :-