Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the final judgment and order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Bombay by which the High Court has allowed the writ petition by holding that the respective writ petitioners ought to have been superannuated/retired at the age of 60 years instead of 58 years.
Brief Facts:
The appellant and others filed the writ petitions before the High Court challenging the action of the respondents in superannuating/retiring them at the age of 58 years. According to them, the retirement age was 60 years. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has held that the retirement age of the respective original writ petitioners were 60 years and they were wrongly superannuated/retired at the age of 58 years. However, as the respective writ petitioners approached the High Court belatedly, the High Court has held that none of the writ petitioners shall be entitled to any salary/back wages for the period of two extra years they would have got in service.
HC’s Decision:
The High Court has also observed that though the writ petitioners would be entitled to the pension on the basis that they continued in service until they attain the age of 60 years, they would not be entitled to any arrears of pension and the pension at the revised rates will become payable only from 1st January, 2020.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that there is no justification at all for denying the arrears of pension as if they would have been retired/superannuated at the age of 60 years. There is no justification at all by the High Court to deny the pension at the revised rates and payable only from 1st January, 2020. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court to the extent of denying any arrears of pension and holding that the appellant shall be entitled to the pension at the revised rates only from 1st January, 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is held and ordered that the appellant –original writ petitioner shall be entitled to pension at the revised rates from the date he attains the age of 60 years. Now the arrears accordingly shall be paid to the appellant within a period of four weeks from today.”
Case Title: Shri M.L. Patil v. The State of Goa and Anr.
Bench: J. M.R. Shah and J. B.V. Nagarathna
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4100 OF 2022
Decided on: 20th May, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :