SHRI GAJANAN L. PERNEKAR versus STATE OF GOA AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 16-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, M. JAGANNADHA RAO, N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SHRI GAJANAN L. PERNEKAR 
v. 
STATE OF GOA AND ANR. 
AUGUST 16,1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND 
N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Educational Institution-Headmaster of High School-Schoo/ taken 
over by Government-Appellant-Headmaster appointed as Headmaster of 
other school which was a middle school-His representation allowed by 
Government order dated 16.i 1994 and he was absorbed as Headmaster of 
Government High School w.e.j 1.4.1974 with consequential benefits-Writ 
D petition filed by appellant as consequential benefits not granted-High Court 
disposed of writ petition with liberty to appellant to make representation to 
department-High Court, however, observed that appointment of appellant 
as Headmaster of Middle School was with his consent-Appeal against the 
observations-Meanwhile on the strength of order of High Court, Government 
by order dated 21122.1.99 not only rejected representation of appellant for 
/E consequential benefits but also rescinded order of absorption dated 
16.2.1994-Held, observations made by High Court were uncalled for and, 
there.fore, set aside-Order of Government dated 21122.1.1999 having been 
passed in breach of principles of natural justice and in violation of fair play 
in action, is also set aside-Liberty to appellant to make representation to 
Government which would decide the same expeditiously-Administrative 
F Law-Principles of natural justice-Opportunity of hearing. 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4504of1999. 
From the Jµdgrµent and Order dated 14.7.98 of the Bombay High Court 
in W.P. No. 261 of 1996. 
Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam, Ms. Shobha and S.K. Mehta, for the 
Appellant. 
Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
488 
'· 
-
Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. 
G.L. PERNEKAR v. STATE 
489 
The appellant was appointed as the Headmaster of Shri Ramdas High 
School, Amona, Goa on 25th May, 1970 in the pay scale of Rs. 325-575. He 
A 
was confinned in the post of Headmaster after completion of the period of B 
probation on 1.6.1972. Shri Ramdas High School, which was a private school, 
was taken over by the Government, alongwith the staff working in the said 
school w.e.f. l.4.1974. At the time when the school was taken over, the 
appellant was drawing his pay in the revised pay scale of Rs. 400. After the 
take over of the school vide an order dated 10th June, 1974, the Government 
appointed the appellant as Headmaster of Government Middle School at C 
Saligao in the pay scale of Rs. 300-25-450-EB-25-600. Appellant protested 
against his appointment as Headmaster of the Middle School, since earlier he 
had been working as a Headmaster of the High School. The appellant, after 
having joined the post of the Headmaster of the Middle School, made various 
representations. He cited cases of some others to point out the injustice that D 
had been done to him. On 13th January, 1993, the appellant was promoted to 
the post of Deputy Education Officer in the Directorate of Education on ad-
hoc basis. 
The representations made by the appellant from time to time were 
considered by the Government and on 16.2.1994, an order came to be made 
whereby the appellant was absorbed as a Headmaster of Government High E 
School with retrospective effect from the date of take over of the School, i.e. 
with effect from 1.4.1974 with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom. 
The earlier order dated 10.6.1974 was rescinded. Since the consequential 
benefits, as granted by the Government in its order dated 16.2.1994, were not 
given to the appellant, he filed Writ Petition No. 261/1996 in the High Court F 
of Bombay at Goa. The precise issue raised in the writ petition was with 
regard to the failure to give consequential benefits to him as flowing from the 
order of the Government, dated 16.2.1994. On 14th July, 1998, the writ petition 
was heard and disposed of. So far as the consequentia! benefits are concerned, 
the appellant was given the liberty to make a representation to the department 
and the department was directed to decide that representation within a period G 
of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. 
In para -2 of the order of the High Court, dated 14th July, 1998, the 
learned Bench observed:-
"2. During the course of hearing it was revealed that the absorption H 
A 
B 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
of the petitioner against the post of He
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.