Bombay High Court
Deepa Dongrikar vs Director Of Health Services, Govt. Of ... on 12 March, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M. S. Sonak
2025:BHC-GOA:442-DB 7 WP 734 OF 2024.ODT
2025:BHC-GOA:442-DB
Esha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 734 OF 2024
Deepa Dongrikar, wife of Devendra
Dongrikar, aged 64 years, Indian
National, resident of Katte Bhat, Ella,
Old Goa, Goa. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. Director of Health Services,
Government of Goa, having office
at Directorate of Health Services,
Campal, Panaji-Goa.
2. State of Goa, through its Chief
Secretary, having office at ... RESPONDENTS
Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez-Goa.
***
Mr. Parikshit S. Sawant Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Samant, Additional Government Advocate for the
Respondents.
CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
M. S. SONAK, J.
DATED: 12th MARCH 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT: [per Chief Justice]
1. In this Writ Petition, we issue Rule. The Rule is made
returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for
the parties, heard finally.
2. In this Petition, the Petitioner has assailed the validity of the
action of the Respondents in deducting an amount of
Rs.2,97,324/- from the amount of gratuity due to the Petitioner,
on superannuation.
12th March 2025
7 WP 734 OF 2024.ODT
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the present Petition, in a
nutshell, are that the post of Library Assistant was advertised on
27.01.1984. The Petitioner in response to the aforesaid
advertisement took part in the selection process. The Petitioner
on 27.01.1987 was appointed on the post of Library Assistant. The
services of the Petitioner were regularised on 27.01.1987.
Thereafter, the Petitioner was granted the benefit of the Assured
Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. The Petitioner after rendering
30 years of service, on 31.03.2014, superannuated as Library
Assistant. However, Respondent No. 1 has deducted an amount of
Rs.2,97,324/- from the gratuity amount of the Petitioner. Hence
this Petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that neither any
notice nor an opportunity of hearing was granted to the Petitioner
before deducting the aforesaid amount from the dues payable to
the Petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government
Advocate for the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner made
a representation on 10.09.2018 and Respondent No. 1, Director of
Health Services, Panaji, Goa will decide the representation.
6. We have considered the rival submissions made by both
sides and perused the record.
12th March 2025
7 WP 734 OF 2024.ODT
7. The principles of natural justice inhere in every decision
making process. It is trite law that principles of natural justice
apply, until and unless they are expressly excluded by the statute.
It has not been pointed out on behalf of the Government that
principles of natural justice in the factual situation of the instant
case have been instituted by any statutory provisions. The action
of withholding the amount which was due to the Petitioner on
account of superannuation i.e. a sum of Rs.2,97,324/- is an action
prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioner. Therefore, in the
factual situation of the case, the State being the model employer,
ought to have furnished the details of the amount which was
payable to the Petitioner on superannuation and ought to have
sought her comments before deducting the amount of
Rs.2,97,324/-.
8. The aforesaid course of action has not been adhered to by
the Director of Health Services, Government of Goa. The
contention that principles of justice do not apply to the factual
situation of the case being misconceived is rejected. Insofar as the
submission that the Director of Health Services, Government of
Goa, shall decide the representation dated 10.09.2018 made by the
Petitioner is concerned, suffice it to say that the aforesaid
representation was made before the Director of Health Services on
10.09.2018 i.e. six years ago. No explanation has been offered for
the inaction on the part of the Respondents for a period of six
12th March 2025
7 WP 734 OF 2024.ODT
years. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we
direct Respondent No. 1 to transfer the amount of Rs.2,97,324/- to
the Account of the Petitioner within a period of two weeks, failing
which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6%
per annum.
9. Needless to say it would be open to Respondent No. 1 to
recover the amount from the Petitioner, if so advised, in
accordance with law and after due compliance with the principles
of natural justice.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
M. S. SONAK, J. CHIEF JUSTICE
12th March 2025
