Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of the pay-scale fixation for employees of the Judicial Department in Goa, Daman and Diu, a Union Territory that had been under Portuguese colonial administration until its liberation on 20 December 1961. The respondents were appointed to posts in the Judicial Department sometime in 1963, after liberation, whereas the posts themselves had been created by a Portuguese decree before that date. The Commissioner (Finance) of the Goa, Daman & Diu Administration issued a circular on 15 September 1962 prescribing pay scales to various posts, including Rs.335-525 for the posts held by the respondents. In response to their representation, the Government passed an order on 20 September 1989 making the respondents entitled to the pay scales initially prescribed to the posts under the Portuguese decree. However, after realising the mistake, the Government cancelled that order by proceedings dated 27 December 1990. The respondents challenged the cancellation before the High Court, which held that by operation of Section 5 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Administration Act, the respondents came to be continued on posts created prior to 20 December 1961 and were therefore entitled to the prescribed pay scales. The High Court's order in Writ Petition No.77 of 1991 dated 30 August 1993 was followed in other writ petitions, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the respondents were 'absorbed employees' within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbed Employees) Act, 1965, which defined an absorbed employee as a person who immediately before 20 December 1961 was holding an absorbed post and who on and after that date either served or had been serving in that or any other post in connection with the administration of the Union Territory or in any department of the Central Government. Section 2(b) defined 'absorbed post' as a civil service or post which existed under the former Portuguese Administration immediately before 20 December 1961. The Court also examined the Rules made on 27 December 1965, particularly the definitions of 'appointed day' (1 February 1966), 'existing pay', and 'absorbed employee' under Rule 2, as well as Rule 3, which provided for revision of pay scales of absorbed posts. The Court observed that a reading of these provisions indicated that a person eligible for the benefit of Section 5 of the Administration Act must be an employee existing as on 20 December 1961 on a post held under the Portuguese Administration and continuing as on the appointed day under the Rules. Since the respondents were admittedly appointed after the Administrator had issued the circular and only sometime in 1963, they were not eligible to the pay of the posts prescribed by the Portuguese decree. The Court, accordingly, allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's orders. However, it directed that the amounts paid under the erroneous orders issued by the Government may not be recovered from the respondents, and that the order would be worked out for the purpose of fixation of their pension. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Absorbed Employees - Definition and Eligibility - Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbed Employees) Act, 1965, Sections 2(a), 2(b); Goa, Daman and Diu Administration Act, Section 5; Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbed Employees) Rules, 1965, Rules 2(c), 2(e), 3, 4, 7 - The respondents were appointed in 1963, after the liberation of Goa, Daman and Diu on December 20, 1961, and after the Commissioner (Finance) issued a circular on September 15, 1962 prescribing pay scales; the Government initially extended Portuguese decree pay scales by order dated September 20, 1989 but cancelled it on December 27, 1990. The High Court held that Section 5 of the Administration Act continued the pre-existing posts and therefore the respondents were entitled to the prescribed pay scales; the Supreme Court examined the statutory definitions and Rules, and held that a person must have been holding an absorbed post immediately before December 20, 1961 and continuing on the appointed day under the Rules to claim the benefit; since the respondents failed this condition, they were not absorbed employees and not entitled to the Portuguese decree pay scales; appeals allowed, with no recovery of amounts already paid and direction to work out the order for pension fixation (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondents, appointed after December 20, 1961, are absorbed employees within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbed Employees) Act, 1965, entitled to pay scales prescribed for posts under the Portuguese decree.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; orders of High Court set aside; respondents held not entitled to pay scales prescribed by Portuguese decree; amounts already paid under erroneous orders not to be recovered; orders to be worked out for fixation of pension; no costs.
Law Points
- Definition of absorbed employee requires holding absorbed post immediately before 20 December 1961
- Persons appointed after liberation not entitled to Portuguese decree pay scales
- Section 5 of Goa
- Daman and Diu Administration Act continues posts but does not confer absorbed employee status on later appointees
- Rule 3 read with Section 2(a) of Act and Rules restrict benefits to pre-liberation employees
- No recovery of amounts paid under erroneous orders
