SHRI M.L. PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS versus THE STATE OF GOA AND ANR.
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 362, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 362
362
SHRI M.L. PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS
v.
THE STATE OF GOA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4100 of  2022)
MAY 20, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Pension – Arrears of pension – Denial of – Order
passed by the High Court that the retirement age of the writ
petitioners was 60 years and they were wrongly superannuated/
retired at the age of 58 years, however, since they approached the
High Court belatedly, they would not be entitled to any salary/back
wages for the period of two extra years they would have got in
service; that though they would be entitled to the pension, but would
not be entitled to any arrears of pension; and that the pension at
the revised rates would become payable only from 1st January,
2020 – On appeal, held: Pension is a continuous cause of action –
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 – Order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside –
Writ petitioner entitled to pension at the revised rates from the date
he attains the age of 60 years and accordingly, arrears would be
paid to them.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court erred in observing that the
appellant would not be entitled to any
arrears of pension and the
pension at the revised rates will become payable only from 1st
January, 2020. As such, the High Court may be right and/or
justified in denying any salary for the period of two extra years to
the writ petitioners if they would have continued in service, on
the ground of delay. However, as far as the pension is concerned,
it is a continuous cause of action. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
363
justification at all by the High Court to deny the pension at the
revised rates and payable only from 1st January, 2020, thus, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court to that
extent is quashed and set aside. The appellant-original writ
petitioner would be entitled to pension at the revised rates from
the date he attains the age of 60 years. The arrears would be paid
to the appellant within the stipulated period. [Para 3, 4][364-E-H;
365-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4100
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2020 of the High Court
of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.961 of 2015.
Rahul Gupta, Adv. for the Appellants.
Ravindra Lokhande, Abhishek Atrey, Nring Chamwibo Zeliang,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final
judgment and orderdated 11.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Bombay
at Goa in Writ Petition No. 961/2015, by which, though the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition by holding that the respective writ
petitioner sought to have been superannuated/retired at the age of 60
years instead of 58 years, the High Court has refused arrears of pension
and has observed that the pension at the revised rates will become payable
only from 1st January, 2020, the original writ petitioner has preferred the
present appeal.
2. That the appellant – original writ petitioner of writ petition No.
961/2015 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 was 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
SHRI M.L. PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS  v. THE STATE OF
GOA AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
shall be entitled to any salary/back wages for the period of two extra
years they would have got in service. 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.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court to the extent denying the back
wages for the period of two extra years and observing and directing that
original writ petitioner will not be entitled to any arrears of pension and
the pension at the revised rates will become payable only from 1st January,
2020, the original writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 961/2015 has
preferred the present appeal.
3. Having heard Shri Rahul Gupta, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant and Shri Ravindra Lokhande, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent – State of Goa and considering
the fact that even by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
has held that action of the State Government in requiring the original
petitioners to retire at the age of 58 years or not permitting them to
continue in their service uptothe age of 60 years isillegal and null and
void, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in observing
that
the appellant will not be entitled to any arrears of pension and the pension
at the revised rates will become payable only from 1st January, 2020. As
such, the High Court may be right and/or justified in denying any salary
for the period of two extra years to the writ petitioners if they would
have continued in service, on the ground of delay. However, as far as
the pension is concerned, it is a continuous cause of action.  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.
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeal Succeeds in Part. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
365
rates only from 1st January, 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is
held and ordered that theappellant – 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. Present Appeal is Partly Allowed to
the aforesaid extent. In the facts of the case,there shall be no order as to
costs.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal partly allowed.
SHRI M.L. PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS  v. THE STATE OF
GOA AND ANR.