The petitioner, Shri Vincent M. D'Silva, a retired district judge, sought the court's intervention to address discrepancies in the computation of his pension and service-related benefits. The central argument revolved around whether the State of Goa's interpretation of relevant pension rules and retirement benefits was legally sound. After reviewing multiple precedents and legal provisions, the court provided clarity on the matter, addressing both statutory interpretation and administrative errors. The judgment emphasizes the rights of retired judges under service law and establishes important principles related to pensionary benefits.

1. Introduction (Para 1-2):

• Shri Vincent M. D'Silva, retired as a district judge, filed a writ petition against the State of Goa and other respondents for improper pension calculation.
• The petitioner raised concerns regarding the denial of certain pension benefits.

2. Petitioner's Argument (Para 3-7):

• D'Silva argued that the authorities failed to properly compute his pension by misapplying pension rules.
• He highlighted instances where his tenure and years of service were not accounted for correctly.

3. Respondents' Position (Para 8-12):

• The State of Goa, represented by the Chief Secretary, argued that the pension was calculated in accordance with existing rules and legal provisions.
• The respondents cited specific rules, contending that no further benefits were due to the petitioner.

4. Relevant Case Laws and Precedents (Para 13-18):

• The court referenced important judgments, including AIR 1990 SC 1402 and 2015 4 SCC 670, to evaluate the claims and legal standing of the petitioner.
• These cases provided insights into judicial service pension rights and administrative interpretations of service laws.

5. Discussion on Statutes and Sections (Para 19-25):

• The court analyzed the applicable sections of the Goa Civil Service (Pension) Rules, discussing the provisions under which the petitioner's pension was calculated.
• Specific emphasis was laid on interpretations of provisions related to qualifying service and admissible benefits for judicial officers.

6. Judgment and Conclusion (Para 26-36):

• The court concluded that the petitioner's service benefits had been incorrectly calculated due to administrative errors.
• Directions were given to the State of Goa to recalculate the pension and disburse the benefits owed to the petitioner within a stipulated period.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Goa Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 – Provisions related to the calculation of pension, especially for retired judicial officers.
2. Supreme Court Precedents – Various precedents were cited to support interpretations of the pensionary laws.
   • AIR 1990 SC 1402
   • 2015 4 SCC 670

Ratio Decidendi:

The judgment emphasizes that the administrative authorities misinterpreted the rules governing the pension benefits of the petitioner. It reaffirms the importance of accurate calculation of service benefits and pension entitlements for judicial officers, ensuring fair treatment post-retirement. It sets a precedent for similar cases involving discrepancies in pension calculations for retired judges and civil servants.

Subjects:

Pension Law, Service Law, Judicial Service, Retirement Benefits

Goa Civil Service Rules, Pension Calculation, Judicial Pension, Administrative Error, Service Benefits