1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.131/2005 (1) Shri Ladshet Sadashiv Ghotge, resident of House No.946, Chandrawado, P.O. Fatorda, Margao-Goa-403 602. (2) Shri Ramesh Chari, resident of Caraswada, Corlim, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa (3) Shri Pandurang D. Naik, resident of Parpatiwada, Bandora, Ponda, Goa. (4) Shri Laximikant D. Kapileshwarker, resident of Kapileshwar, P.O. Kavlem, Ponda, Goa. (5) Shri Chandrakant N. Naik, resident of House No.1083, Chodan, Madel, Tiswadi-Goa. (6) Shri Francisco de Sa e Peixoto, resident of Fondvem, Ribandar, Ilhas, Goa. (7) Shri Rohidas Chimelkar, resident of House No.474, Gaulem Bhat, Chimbel, Ribandar, Goa. (8) Shri Srikanth Golteker, resident of House No.213, Carmiche Bhat, 2 P.O. St. Cruz, Merces, Goa. .......... Petitioners. Versus. (1) State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, having Office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. (2) The Principal Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Goa, having Office at Altinho, Panaji, Goa. ....... Respondents. Mr. M. S. Sonak and Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.A. BRITTO, JJ. Date : 2nd December, 2008. ORAL J U D G M E N T : (A.P. DESHPANDE, J.) The writ petition stands dismissed to the extent it relates to petitioner No.6 as he has opted for a Voluntary Retirement Scheme and on that count he ceases to be an employee of the State Government. The following order is restricted only to petitioners No.1 to 5, 7 and 8. 3 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Pangam and Shri Rivonkar, learned Government Advocate are in agreement that the facts of the present case are akin to the facts in the batch of writ petitions, including Writ Petitions No.110, 130, 420 to 424 of 2000, 31, 78, 96, 335, 362 and 228 of 2001 which are disposed of by a common Judgment dated 1st April, 2004. The said writ petitions are disposed of on concession made available by the State Government and pursuant to which directions came to be issued against the Government to grant pay and allowances to the petitioners till the date preceding the day of approval of the Central Government to the Goa Civil Services (Retirement) Rules, 2000. In the present petition as well, the learned Government Advocate submits that it would extend the same benefits to petitioners No.1 to 5, 7 and 8 as were extended to the petitioners in the batch of petitions referred to hereinabove. The learned Counsel for the petitioners is agreeable for the disposal of the petition in view of the statement made by the learned Government Advocate and makes a statement that the petitioners are not pressing the prayer clause (B) and the petition is pressed in service to the extent of prayer clause (A). 4 3. In this view of the matter, the writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent it relates to petitioners No.1 to 5, 7 and 8 and we direct the State Government to grant pay and allowances to the petitioners till the date, preceding the day of approval of the Central Government to the Goa Civil Services (Retirement) Rules, 2000. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in the above terms, with no order as to costs. The payment shall be made within a period of 3 months from today. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. N.A. BRITTO, J. ssm.