VITHAL Y. GALTONDE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 952 · Decided: 16-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VITHAL Y. GALTONDE 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 16, 2003 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Goa, Daman & Diu [Repeal of Posts and Telegraphs Law$] Regu-
,C lation, 1962-Appointment-Retirement Age-Liberation of Goa ji-om 
Portuguese rule and annexation to India-Subsequent appointment of 
claimant .to Goa Post and Telegraphs services-Claim that appointment 
being in terms of Portuguese Rules retirement age to be 60 years-Tribunal 
dismissing the claim-On appeal, held : Claimant being appointed under 
1962 Regulation;:n temporary basis on a fixed pay scale and not being 
·D an absorbed employee, .cannot claim benefit of retirement at the age of 60 
years under the Portuguese Rules-Goa, Daman and Diu Administrative 
Act, 1962-Sections .4 and 5. 
· 
Goa .was .liberated ,from the ·Portuguese .rule .on 19.12.1961 .and 
E was annexed to the territory of ·India. ~II the Government servants 
appointed after the liberation were ,being governed ,by various mies 
and regulations framed by the Government of India -regulating the 
service conditions of the•Central :Government servants. On 11.6.1962 
the appellant was appointed -to ·the·Goa ~Post and Telegraph Services 
F under Goa, ·oaman & ·Diu (Repeal .of ·Post~ and Telegraphs ·Laws) 
Regulaton, 1962 as .a temporary operator. Thereafter, he attained 
superannuation on 31.1.94 and-was to'.retire with effect from 31;1.-1994. 
The appellant challenged the order -on the ground that as he was 
appointed in-terms ofthe•Portuguese·law his retirement age should•be 
60 years. Tribunal held ·that the appellant .was ·not an absorbed 
G employee and as.the appellant was-not appointed-undei" the•Portuguese 
law he cannot claim the retirement age to be of60 years. Aggrieved 
appellant tiled review petition ·which ·was also dismissed. ·Hence the 
present appeal. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
952 
V.V. GAITONDE v. U.O.I. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 
953 
HELD : 1.1. The appellant was appointed on 11.6.1962 in the A 
Department of Posts & Telegraphs under the Goa, Daman & Diu [Repeal 
of Posts and Telegraphs Law] Regulation, 1962 which came into force 
on 1.9.1962 and while repealing the various decrees saved the rights, 
privileges, obligations and liabilities acquired, accrued or incurred under 
such law. Between the date of liberation of Goa, i.e., 19.12.1961 and B 
1.9.1962 the Military Government of Goa, Daman & Diu had passed 
certain orders empowering the Director ofCTT to make appointments 
on daily wages, provisional appointments, extension and confirmation. 
He had been conferred powers for appointment of staff other than those 
whose appointment was vested in the erstwhile Overseas Minister. It is C 
in terms of this order that the appellant was appointed in pursuance of 
the order made by the Military Government of Goa, Daman & Diu on 
temporary basis on a fixed pay scale and he cannot claim the benefit 
of the relevant rules which stood in force prior to the coming into force 
.of the new Rules. (955-D-F; 956-A-B; 957-C] 
.State of Goa v. Yvette Periera, [1998) 9 SCC 112, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2636 of 
1999 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.95 in R.P.31.95/in O.A. No. E 
407/94 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Bombay. 
R.K. Maheshwari, Dr. Kanwal Sapra and Rishi Maheshwari for the 
Appellant. 
P.P. Malhotra, Rajiv Nanda and P. Parmeswaran for the Respond-
ents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. : The appellant before us claims to have been G 
appointed on 11.6.1962 as an Operator [Temporary] in the Government of 
Goa. The said country became liberated on 19.12.1961 and was annexed 
to the territory of India. 
The appellant challenged an order dated 
6.10. l 993/6.l.l 991f by whi~,h.he was informed that he would attain the age 
of superannuation· on 31.1.1994. He has since retired on 3 l. l .1994. 
H 
954 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
The contention put forth by the appellant 
is that he had been 
appointed in terms- of Article 63 read with Article 26A of the Statute of 
the Overseas Functionaries and, therefore, his age of retirement should be 
considered in accordance with clause 430 [Chapter VII] of the EST ATUTO 
DO FUNCTIONALISMO UL TRAMARINO, which fixed the age of 
B retirement as 60 years. The appellant claims that he having been appointed 
in terms of the Portuguese law, he should be allowed to retire only at the 
age of60 years and his rep
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.