The Supreme Court on Thursday (November 14) pulled up the State of Goa for notifying the service rules for employees of the Bombay High Court in Goa on behalf of the HC Chief Justice, which differ significantly from what was initially submitted to the Government of Goa by the Chief. Justice.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih noted that the state chief secretary had justified this conduct in his affidavit and directed him to appear before the court through video conferencing to give his explanation on the incorporation of the amended rules.

“The Chief Secretary justified the act of framing rules knowing full well that the said rules do not correspond to the draft rules submitted by the Bombay High Court. The Rule was published with the narrative that it was formulated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. We are really shocked to learn that instead of withdrawing the rules, the state chief secretary tried to justify them. We, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary of the State to remain personally present before this court through video conferencing next Friday to explain how the consideration we have cited above has been incorporated into the body of the Rules.“, declared the Court.

The Court heard a suo moto case regarding the grievances of former employees of the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court regarding delay in pension benefits.

The Court noted that the Goa Government’s notification to the Bombay High Court of Goa Officers and Staff regarding the Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2023 deviated from the draft rules submitted by the Chief Justice of the HC.

The Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, had taken suo moto cognizance of a letter from former employees of the Goa judiciary alleging delays in pension and other retirement benefits with some employees awaiting payment even 3 to 7 years after retirement. The court’s intervention was prompted by concerns about financial difficulties, including a reported suicide linked to prolonged pension delays.

The directions to improve the pay scale, issued by the Chief Justice of the Bombay HC, were aimed at Group A and B secretariat staff of the Bombay High Court. Retired staff of the High Court (Goa branch) complain that even though the Maharashtra government complied with these directions for the Bombay, Aurangabad and Nagpur benches, the Goa government rejected them for the Goa seat.

“If you wanted to publish the Regulations, you should have published them as is. You cannot amend the Rules and publish them in the name of the Chief Justice. In his affidavit, the chief secretary openly justified his conduct. We cannot ignore the way you treated the judiciary. It’s something atrocious. The only way is to follow the draft regulations sent by the High Court.said Justice Oka, criticizing the affidavit submitted by the Chief Secretary.

State advocate Abhay Anturkar sought time to comply with the court’s directive.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also represented the state, saying he was not defending the state government’s actions or rule changes.

Justice Oka said the state’s actions required consequences. He remarked: “Chief Secretary must learn a lesson.”

The Court in July had noted the inconsistencies in the notification issued on June 3, 2023, which purported to follow the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. The Court had pointed out that this notification was “prima facie contrary to law” and appeared to misrepresent the authority of the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court had hoped that the situation would be rectified after the submission of a personal affidavit by the chief secretary. However, Justice Oka expressed disappointment that the affidavit filed on July 25, 2024 justified the changes to the Rules rather than addressing the Court’s concerns.

Background

The case arises out of long-standing grievances raised by retired employees of the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, had taken suo moto cognizance of a letter from former employees of the Goa judiciary alleging delays in pension and other retirement benefits with some employees awaiting payment even 3 to 7 years after retirement. The court’s intervention was prompted by concerns about financial difficulties, including a reported suicide linked to prolonged pension delays.

In July, the Supreme Court sought the chief secretary’s response to the alleged non-compliance of service delivery which had been approved by the chief justice under Article 229 of the Constitution. The retired employees argued that Goa’s exemption from these rules had led to salary disparities between the staff of the Goa bench and those of other benches, including Mumbai, Aurangabad and Nagpur.

During the July proceedings, the Court had pointed out that the rules notified by the Goa government deviated significantly from the draft rules, creating disparities in pension benefits. She noted that this derogation occurred without necessary consultations, thereby violating the constitutional framework governing the administrative autonomy of the judiciary.

Case No. – WP(C) No. 464/2023

Case Title – Concerning Retirement Benefits for Retired Employees. From the Bombay High Court in Goa v. State of Goa