Panaji, 21st September, 2017 (Bhadra 30, 1939)
SERIES II No. 25
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
1549
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Agriculture
Directorate of Agriculture
__
Order
No. 8/15/2017-18/D.Agri/147
Read: 1) Order No. 8/78/2016-17/D.Agri/81 dated
14-06-2016.
Government is pleased to grant extension of
ad hoc promotion to the following Group ‘A’ Officers
of this Department for the period mentioned against
their names on the same terms and conditions as
indicated in the above referred Order.
Sr.
Name & Designation of
Date of Extension
No.
the Officers
1. Shri Madhav B. Kelkar
15-06-2017 to 30-09-2017.
2. Shri Nevil Alphonso
15-06-2017 to 30-09-2017.
3. Smt. Ana Dias e Camara 15-06-2017 to 30-09-2017.
This is issued with due concurrence of the Goa
Public Service Commission vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/2(1)/2017/710 dated 24-08-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
U. B. Pai Kakode, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 7th September, 2017.
Note:-
There are three Extraordinary issues to the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 24 dated 14-09-2017
as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 15-09-2017 from pages
1531 to 1536 regarding Notification from
Department of Elections.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 18-09-2017 from
pages 1537 to 1538 regarding Notification from
Department of Commercial Taxes.
(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 20-09-2017 from
pages 1539 to 1548 regarding Notification from
Department of Elections.
Order
No. 2/25/2017-18/D.Agri (Part)/154
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/
/12/2(1)/2014/832 dated 24-08-2017, the probation
period of the following Assistant Agricultural
Officers, Group ‘B’ Gazetted Officers of this
Directorate in the pay band of PB-II Rs. 9,300-
-34,800+4,200/- Grade Pay (Level-6 in the 7th Pay
Commission Matrix) have been lifted as they have
completed probation period satisfactorily as shown
below and they also have been confirmed against
the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer with
immediate effect.
Sr.
Name of the
Date of joining
Date of
No.
Officer
in regular service
completion
as Assistant
of probation
Agricultural
period
Officer
1. Shri Rudresh R.
08-08-2013
07-08-2015.
Kambli
2. Shri Govind V.
16-08-2013
15-08-2015.
Parab
3. Shri Pandurang G.
10-12-2014
09-12-2016.
Desai
4. Kum. Sonia S. Mote
25-11-2014
24-11-2016.
5. Kum. Pradnya Pravin 01-01-2015
31-12-2016.
Gaude Priolkar (ST)
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
U. B. Pai Kakode, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary
(Agriculture).
Tonca, Caranzalem, 14th September, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1550
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Art and Culture
__
Order
No. DAC/CS-V/T.P./Comm./2017-18/3740
Government is pleased to constitute State Level
Tripurari Poornima Celebration Committee under the
Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister for Art & Culture,
to organise Tripurari Poornima Festival 2017, as
under:
Sr.
Name of the Committee Members
Status
No.
1. Shri Govind Gaude,
Chairman.
Hon. Minister for Art & Culture
2. Dr. Pramod Sawant,
Vice
Hon. Speaker, Goa Legislative
Chairman.
Assembly
3. Shri Pravin Zantye, M.L.A., Maem
Vice
Chairman.
4. Chairman, GTDC
Member.
5. Secretary, Art & Culture
Member.
6. Director of Information & Publicity
Member.
7. Director, Dept. of Tourism
Member.
8. Managing Director, GTDC
Member.
9. Principal, Goa College of Art, Panaji
Member.
10. Deputy Collector, Bicholim
Member.
11. Chairman, Sankhali Municipal
Member.
Council
12. President, Deepawali Utsav Samithi,
Member.
Vitthalapur
13. Secretary, Shree Vitthal Devasthan,
Member.
Vitthalapur
14. Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Karapur, Member.
Sarvan
15. Superintendent of Police (North)
Member.
16. Dy. SP, Traffic (North)
Member.
17. SDPO, Bicholim
Member.
18. Chief Officer,
Member.
Sankhali Municipal Council
19. Executive Engineer,
Member.
PWD, Divisional Office,
WD-V, Panaji
20. Shri Sagar Jawdekar,
Convener.
Panaji-Goa
21. Shri Prasad Lolayekar,
Member
Director of Art & Culture
Secretary.
The Committee shall advise the Government in
the organisation of Tripurari Poornima Festival 2017
that will be held at Vithalapur, Sankhali-Goa on
3rd November, 2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Prasad V. Lolayekar, Director & ex officio
Jt. Secretary (Art & Culture).
Panaji, 5th September, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Forest
__
Notification
No. 2/185/2003-FOR/323
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6
of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (Central Act 53
of 1972), read with Section 21 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897 (Central Act 10 of 1897), the Government
of Goa hereby amends the Government Notification
No. 2/185/2003/FOR/214 dated 05-08-2016
published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 20
dated 18th August, 2016 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Principal Notification”) as follows, namely:-
In the Principal Notification,-
(i) for the existing entries against serial Nos. (1),
(3), (4) and (5), the following entries shall be
respectively substituted, namely:-
“1. Shri Manohar G. Parrikar,
...
Chairperson.
Hon. Chief Minister
3. Shri Prasad Gaonkar,
...
Member.
MLA, Sanguem
4. Shri Nilesh Cabral,
...
Member.
MLA, Curchorem
5. Shri Deepak Prabhu
...
Member”;
Pauskar, MLA, Sanvordem
(ii) entry against serial No. 2 shall be omitted.
This Notification shall come into force with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shaila G. Bhosle, Under Secretary (Forests).
Porvorim, 7th September, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of General Administration
__
Order
No. 14/8/2001-GAD-III-Part-I/2758
Ex-post facto approval of the Government is
hereby conveyed to extend the ad hoc promotion of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1551
Smt. Ana C. Marques Fernandes, Section Officer, in
the Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa for the following
periods as mentioned below:-
Period of Extension
1) From 11-07-2015 to 10-07-2016 (Ex-Post facto).
2) From 11-07-2016 to 10-07-2017 (Ex-Post facto).
3) From 11-07-2017 to 30-09-2017.
This issues with the concurrence of the Goa
Public Service Commission as conveyed vide
their letter No. COM/II/11/42(4)/2012/698 dated
21-08-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Varsha S. Naik, Under Secretary (GA-I).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Handicrafts, Textile & Coir
__
Order
No. 2/7/2014/HT&C/128
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/11/75(1)/2017/726 dated 04-09-2017, ex-post facto
approval of the Government is hereby conveyed to
extend the ad hoc promotion of Shri Soma Gawas,
Technical Officer, Group “B” Gazetted in the
Department of Handicrafts, Textile & Coir, Panaji for
the interim period w.e.f. 06-11-2016 to
10-08-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Smita Hede, Under Secretary (HT & C).
Porvorim, 11th September, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Home
Home—General Division
__
Order
No. 21/7/2014-HD(G)/2642
Every year, the Government observes dry day on
2nd October, in order to pay homage and respect
to the Father of the Nation.
In this regard, all the Casino licensees shall stop
the operation of the Casinos in the State of Goa on
2nd October, 2017 [from 12.00 a.m. midnight to 12.00
a.m. midnight (24 hours)] in order to pay homage
and respect to the Father of the Nation.
The above directions shall be adhered to
scrupulously.
This is issued in public interest.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Neetal P. Amonkar, Under Secretary (Home).
Porvorim, 11th September, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
__
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-II/640
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
28-07-2017 in Appln. No. 2/2016 is hereby published
as required by Section 17 of the Industrial Disptues
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 12th September, 2017.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Appln. No. 2/2016
Shri Arun D. Mairekar,
H. No. 79, Sadashivnagar,
Dharbandora, Goa.
… Applicant/Party I
V/s
M/s. Kadamba Transport
Corporation Ltd.,
Paraise de Goa,
Alto, Porvorim-Goa.
… Opponent/Party II
Applicant/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar.
Opponent/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Agrawal.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month
of July of the year 2017)
This is an application filed by the Applicant
under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (for short The Act).
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1552
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Applicant is as
follows:
The Applicant/Party I was working as Heavy
Vehicle Driver badge No. 1077 and was posted at
Margao depot at the time of discharge of the
services on medically unfit ground. During the
service tenure, the Party I was posted at various
inter-states routes. The services of the Party I was
utilized for highway routes due to which there
was cascading effect on the health of the workman.
There is no restroom due to which the workman
had to sleep in the vehicle and food consumed by
the workman at night out was substandard. The
Party I applied for leave on medical ground and
availed the same and on reporting for the duties,
the Party I was issued with a chargesheet for
absenteeism which was effectively replied by him
vide reply dated 10-02-12. The Party I was referred
to Goa Medical College, Bambolim for medical
examination vide letter dated 23-11-2012 and on
examination of the Party I, medical report dated
23-11-2012 was sent to the employer.
3. On perusal of the report, the Personnel
Manager was pleased to issue a show cause notice
dated 18-12-2012 and that the Party I filed a reply
dated 21-12-2012. On perusal of the reply to the
Show cause notice, the Personnel Manager was
pleased to discharge the services of the Party I on
the ground that he was medically unfit by Order
dated 9-01-2013. The Party I aggrieved with the
certificate dated 23-11-2012 approached the
Medical Board for reconsideration of the medical
certificate issued by the Medical Authorities and
that the Medical Board after conducting various
tests against the Party I issued a medical certificate
duly processed by the authorised Medical Board of
the college wherein it is certified that the Party I
can be rehabilitated as class 4 staff. Under Clause
4(b) of the Certified Standing Orders, it is
specifically mentioned that if the workman is
aggrieved by the certificate issued by the Medical
Authorities then the workman could approach the
Medical Board of the Government against the
decision of the Medical Authorities whose decision
shall be final and binding on the parties. The
Personnel Manager has no powers to terminate the
services of the workman as provided under the
Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation and
since the order of discharge is passed by the
Personnel Manager, the same is illegal and not
tenable in the eyes of the law and liable to be set
aside as the same is in violation of the Certified
Standing Orders of the Corporation.
4. The Party I approached the employer with the
slender hope that he shall be permitted to join the
duties but without any success and that the Party
I being unsuccessful with the attempt, raised the
dispute before the Conciliation Officer for resolving
the issues. Despite of the expiry of forty five days
from the date of the application, the Conciliation
Officer failed to adjudicate the dispute referred to
therein and therefore the present application was
filed before the Hon’ble Tribunal for adjudication
of the dispute in accordance with the provisions of
the Act. The Conciliation Officer also failed to seek
compliance report from the employer in respect of
the status of the employment. The Party I is
unemployed from the date of discharge from the
service till date and that he had approached several
offices for employment but was not successful in
getting the employment. The action of the employer
in retrenching the services of the Party I is illegal.
The Party I is grossly discriminated against the
whims and caprices of unmoving bureaucracy. The
discharge from the services is void and unjustified
and that the Party I is entitled for re-instatement
in services with full back wages and continuity in
services. Hence, the application.
5. The Respondent/Party II filed a Written
statement inter alia contending that the
application has been made without following the
mandate of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and that no demand for re-instatement
was made by the Party I before taking up with the
Asst. Labour Commissioner and that the dispute is
barred by delay and laches. Party II is a State
Transport Undertaking under the purview of the
Motor Transport Act, 1988. The employees of the
Party II are governed by its own Certified Standing
Orders and that the service conditions of the
employees of the Party II are specified in the
Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation and
the Memorandum of Settlement drawn between
the management of Party II and its workmen from
time to time. Party I joined the services of the Party
II as substitute driver w.e.f. 23-3-1988 on daily
wages. The Party I was thereafter taken in service
on probation w.e.f. 1-10-1998 for initial period of
three months and was thereafter confirmed in the
services and that the past record of the Party I was
not unblemished and was issued various
punishments for misconducts on his part.
6. The Party I remained absent from his duty
from 30-10-2011 till 25-1-2012 on account of his
sickness and a chargesheet dated 25-1-2012 was
issued to him for such unauthorized absence
w.e.f. 30-10-2011 till 25-2-2012 and was called upon
to give his explanation within 7 days of the receipt
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1553
of the same and that in reply dated 10-2-2012 to
the chargesheet dated 25-1-2012, the Party I has
informed that he is taking Aryurvedic treatment
for his health and that he may be given light duties
like depot duty or mini buses driving during the
period of his treatment and that the Party I
remained absent till 18-7-2012 even after the receipt
of the chargesheet and his explanation to the same.
The Party I came to report for work on 20-7-2012
and that the Party I is not fit to drive heavy
vehicles, for which the Party I was employed and
as such decided to take an opinion of the Goa
Medical Board of the Goa Medical College and
Hospital, Bambolim-Goa and that the Party I was
referred to the Medical Board of the Goa Medical
College and Hospital for Bambolim. Party I took the
said letter and went to the GMC and thereafter did
not report for work and continued to remain absent
unauthorisedly.
7. Party I reported to the Department of Medicine
of the Goa Medical College and after examination
of the Party I, the Medical Board opined that the
Party I is found to be suffering from chronic optic
neuritis both eyes with peripheral neuropathy and
that the Party I is not fit to continue his work as a
heavy vehicle driver and that the drivers who are
driving passenger vehicles should be fit to drive
such vehicles and any defect in his eyes and/or
physical incapacity would endanger the life of the
passengers as well as the public on the roads. The
Party I was issued a Show cause notice dated
18-12-2012 directing him to Show cause as to why
he should not be discharged from the Corporation
as per clause 4(b) of the Certified Standings Orders
of the Party II. The Party I thereafter filed his
explanation dated 21-12-2012 and after scrutinizing
the same found it far from satisfactory and the
Party I was issued order dated 9-01-2013 stating
that the Party I being declared medically unfit by
the Goa Medical College & Hospital is discharged
from the services of the Corporation with immediate
effect.
8. The final settlement of the Party I was made
vide letter dated 25-2-2013 and that the Party I did
not dispute the discharge for more than two years
and that the Party I disputed the said order of
discharge before the ALC, Panaji vide his letter
dated 7-9-2015, however, no such demand was
made to the Party II by the Party I before
approaching the ALC, Panaji. The Party I thereafter
himself approached the Goa Medical College,
Bambolim for further examination after a period of
three years and that the Medical Board of Goa
Medical College again examined him and issued a
certificate dated 16-7-2015 and that as per the
Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Board,
Party I’s sickness has been caused by his previous
alcoholic habits and that on account of this past
history and the past records of the Party I, the
Party II could not consider the case of the Party I
even for alternate employment and that the action
of the Party II in discharging the Party I from service
is legal, justified and no interference is called for.
9. The Applicant/Party I filed a rejoinder at
Exhibit 7 denying the case put forth by Opponent/
/Party II in the written statement. It is stated that
the employer had made inconsistent averments
contrary to the pleadings of the workman and have
incorporated new facts inconsistent with the plea
of the workman. The workman had applied for leave
on medical ground and availed the same and on
reporting for the duties, the workman was issued
a chargesheet for absenteeism which was
effectively replied by him vide reply dated
10-2-2012.
10. Issues framed at Exhibit 8 are as follows:
1) Whether the Party I proves that his
discharge from the services on 09-01-2013
on medically unfit ground is illegal and
unjustified?
2) Whether the Party I proves that he is
entitled for reinstatement in services with
full back wages and continuity in services
with consequential benefits?
3) Whether Party II proves that the
application is not maintainable as it was
not made by following mandate of Section
2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and
that no demand for re-instatement was
made with Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Panaji?
4) What Order? What Relief?
11. In the course of evidence, the Applicant/
/Party I examined himself as witness and produced
on record an affidavit-in-evidence at Exb. 10, a copy
of charge sheet dated 25-1-2012 at Exb. 11, a copy
of reply to charge sheet dated 10-2-2012 at Exb. 12,
a copy of Show cause notice dated 18-12-2012 at
Exb. 13, a copy of Order dated 9-1-2013 at Exb. 14,
a copy letter dated 20-7-2012 for medical
examination at Exb. 15 colly, a copy certificate
dated 16-7-2015 along with letter dated 22-8-15
issued by Medical Board at Exb. 16 colly, a copy of
representation in respect of termination order dated
9-1-13 at Exb. 17, a certificate dated 23-11-12 issued
by Medical Board of GMC at Exb. 18, a copy of
reply dated 21-12-12 at Exb. 19 and a copy of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1554
representation/appeal against dismissal order
dated 5-9-2015 at Exb. 20. On the other hand, the
Opponent/Party II examined Shri Vidhyadhar
Harmalkar as their witness and produced on record
an affidavit-in-evidence at Exb. 22 and a copy of
Order dated 12-3-1984 along with Certified
Standing Orders at Exb. 23 colly.
12. Heard arguments.
13. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the submissions made
by the learned advocates for Parties. I am
reproducing herewith the issues along with their
findings and reasons thereof.
Issue No. 1
…
In the affirmative.
Issue No. 2
…
In the affirmative.
Issue No. 3
…
In the negative.
Issue No. 4
…
As per final order.
REASONS
Issues No 1:
14. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for Party I has
submitted that the Party I was working as heavy
vehicle driver and was posted at Margao Depot at
the time of his discharge from services on medically
unfit ground and that during the service tenure he
was posted at various inter states routes due to
which there was cascading effect on his health
and that he had to apply for leave on medical
ground and availed the same. He was issued a
chargesheet for absenteeism and thereafter
referred to Goa Medical for medical examination
which opined that Party I was found to be suffering
from chronic optic neuritis both eyes and that he
is not fit to continue his work as heavy driver. The
Party I was not dismissed on the ground of
absenteeism but on medical grounds. The Party I
had approached the Medical Board in terms of
clause 4(b) of Certified Standing Orders as an
aggrieved Party is free to approach the Medical
Board of the Government against the decision of
the Medical Authorities. He further submitted that
the Medical Board has also declared him medically
unfit but claimed that he can be rehabilitated as
a class 4 staff, however the Party II through
Personnel Manager discharged his services from
the Corporation with immediate effect, which is
illegal and not tenable in the eyes of law.
15. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for Party I also
submitted that Clause 37 of the Certified Standing
Orders stipulates that Standing Orders shall not
derogate any laws being in force to the prejudice
of any right under a contract of service, custom or
usage. According to him, the Party II is a State
Undertaking and under Section 47 of the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, no
establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in
rank, an employee who acquires a disability during
his service, provided that, if an employee, after
acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he
was holding, he could be shifted to some other
post with the same pay scale and service benefits.
He submitted that the Party I contracted the
disability as stipulated in Section 2(i)(ii) of the above
Act during the course of his services. The Party II
instead of rehabilitating him in terms of Section 47
of the above Act unauthorisedly discharged the
Party I from the service, although the Party II had
admittedly rehabilitated some of the workers in
service by invoking the provisions of the Act. The
action of Party II is therefore bad-in-law and illegal.
In support of his contention, he relied upon the
cases of (1) Kunal Singh vs Union of India and
Anr, 2003(2) ALL MR 369 (S.C) (2) Ashok Dhondu
Ahire vs. Assistant Director (A) the Director
General, Information and Public Relations & Anr.,
2016(1) ALL MR 100 and (3) Dilbagh Singh vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation, 2006 LLJ 480.
16. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agrawal has
submitted that the medical certificate at Exb. 18
has not been issued by Medical Authorities as
stipulated in clause 4 of the Certified Standing
Orders. The Party I remained absent from duty from
30-10-2011 on account of his sickness and the
chargesheet was issued for his unauthorized
absence. The Party I continued to remain absent
till 18-7-2012 even after receipt of the chargesheet
and the Party II on realizing that he is not fit to
drive heavy vehicles for which he was employed,
decided to take opinion of Goa Medical Board and
the Medical Board opined that he is suffering from
low vision. The Party I was issued a Show cause
notice directing him to reply as to why he should
not be discharged from the Corporation as per
clause 4(b) of the Certified Standing Orders, to
which Party I replied and after scrutinizing the
same found that it was not satisfactory and
therefore by order dated 9-01-2013 discharged him
from service with immediate effect. The Party I also
approached Goa Medical College which issued a
certificate dated 15-7-2015 that he is unfit to
continue working as bus driver for heavy vehicle
as it cannot be predicted as to when he may relapse
into alcohol dependence. The Party II could not
consider Party I even for alternate employment on
account of his past history and therefore the action
of Party II in discharging Party I from service is
legal and justified.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1555
17. Admittedly, a chargesheet was issued to the
Party I dated 25-1-2012 at Exb. 11 on the ground
that the Applicant has violated clause 24 A(ii), 28
(xviii) and 28 (xxv) for remaining absent without
intimation or prior permission; habitual absence
without leave or absence for more than five
consecutive days or overstaying; breach of any
rules or instruction given by any superior for proper
functioning or safety of the establishment. The
Party I was directed to explain in writing from
seven days of issue of chargesheet as to why
necessary action as per the provisions of the
Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation should
not be taken against him. There is no dispute that
the Party I filed a reply dated 10-2-2012 wherein he
stated that he requested their Duty Master to give
him light duties as he was in need to take
Ayurvedic treatment for his health, but they did
not listen and after some days he requested his
superior to grant him some days leave but his leave
application was not sanctioned. He also informed
the Duty master by way of telephonic message
regarding his inability to join duty and that he
always obeyed the instructions of the superiors
and worked regularly. The witness of Party II,
Shri Vidhyadhar Harmalkar has admitted that no
departmental enquiry was conducted in respect of
chargesheet dated 25-1-2012 at Exb. 11 and that
the said charge sheet does not mention about the
medical ground and that he was not charge
sheeted on any medical ground. No action was
initiated against the Party I pursuant to the
chargesheet for absenteeism as stated therein and
the matter was allowed to be rested, as it was.
18. It is a matter of record that a Show cause
notice was issued to the Party I dated 18-12-2012
at Exb. 13 alleging that Party I was noticed to be
habitually absent and under influence of alcohol
and that he was referred to Goa Medical College,
Bambolim for examination and the Medical Board
had informed that the Party I is suffering from
Chronic Optic Neuritis both eyes with peripheral
neuropathy, hence unfit to work as heavy vehicle
driver. There is no dispute that considering the
report of medical examination, the Party I was
discharged from services with immediate effect as
heavy vehicle driver under clause 4(b) of Certified
Standing Orders of the Corporation by order dated
9-01-2013 at Exb. 14. The said discharge order was
issued by Shri T. K. Pause, Personnel Manager of
the Corporation.
19. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar has submitted
and rightly so that the Personnel Manager has no
powers to terminate the services of Party I as
provided under Certified Standing Orders of the
Corporation. Clause 29(C)(i) of the Certified
Standing Orders at Exhibit 23 colly states that the
Manager or an Officer of the Corporation authorised
in this behalf may institute an enquiry against the
workman before imposing on him any of the
punishment listed therein. The ‘Manager’ has been
defined under Clause 2 (c) as General Manager or
Depot Manager or the person for the time being
Managing the establishment and includes any
other officers duly authorised to exercise powers
of the Manager, such authorization being notified
to the workmen by displaying it on Notice Boards
of the establishments and the ‘Competent
Authority’ under Clause 2 (i) means the General
Manager, Deputy General Manager, Depot Manager
or any other officer of Corporation duly appointed
by the Managing Director and notified. There is no
dispute that the chargesheet dated 25-1-2012 at
Exb. 11 was issued by Dy. General Manager & (TRF),
Disciplinary Authority, however the Show cause
notice dated 18-12-2012 at Exb. 13 and the
Discharge order dated 9-01-2013 at Exhibit 14 were
issued by one Shri T. K. Pawase, the Personnel
Manager and not by the Competent Authority as
provided by the Certified Standing Orders of the
Corporation.
20. The witness of Party II, Shri Vidhyadhar
Harmalkar in cross examination has admitted that
the Disciplinary Authority of Party II is the General
Manager of the Corporation and that the powers of
General Manager are exercised by the Dy. General
Manager. He however claimed that he as a
Personnel Manager has powers to dismiss the
employee of the Corporation and the said powers
are vested in the Certified Standing Orders and
when he was confronted with Certified Standing
Orders at Exb. 23 colly, he admitted that the
Certified Standing Orders does not provide for
dismissal of the employee of the Corporation by
Personnel Manager, however added that the powers
have been delegated by the Managing Director to
any Manager to exercise the disciplinary powers.
No documents have been produced including the
power of delegation in favour of above witness or
said Shri T. K. Pawase. It is also not provided in the
Certified Standing Orders as admitted by him. It is
therefore the Personnel Manager has no authority
to either issue a Show cause notice at Exb. 13 or
the dismissal order at Exb. 14 and therefore the
dismissal order issued by the Personnel Manager
is illegal and bad-in-law.
21. Admittedly, the Dismissal order was issued
in terms of clause 4(b) of Certified Standing Orders,
which reads as follows:
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1556
‘If during the course of workman’s
employment, management has reasons to
believe that a workman is not medically fit to
discharge his duties, the management shall
have the right to direct such a workman to
appear before the Medical Authorities for a
medical checkup or to a periodical medical
examination. Thereafter, if the Company’s
Medical Authorities declares that the workman
is medically unfit permanently, he shall be
forthwith discharged from the services of the
Corporation. The aggrieved Party shall be free
to approach the medical Board of the
Government against the decision of Medical
Authorities, whose decision will be final and
binding on the parties.’
22. The witness of Party II, Shri Vidhyadhar
Harmalkar has admitted that as per Show cause
notice dated 18-12-2012 at Exb. 13, it is mentioned
that the aggrieved Party is free to approach the
Medical Board of the Government against the
decision of Medical Authorities whose decision
would be final and binding on the parties and that
as per 4(b) of Certified Standing Orders, the above
remedy was provided. He also admitted that the
discharge of the workman is subject to the decision
of the Medical Board and that the workman had
approached the Medical Board and the Medical
Board issued a certificate at Exb. 16 Colly(2) that
the Party I can be rehabilitated as class 4 staff. He
also admitted that in the certificate dated
23-11-2012 at Exb. 18, it is nowhere mentioned that
the workman is unfit to continue his work as a
heavy vehicle driver permanently. Be that as it
may, there is no dispute that the Party I was
discharged vide order dated 9-1-2013 from the
services of the Corporation with immediate effect
on the ground that he was declared medically unfit
by the Medical Board of Goa Medical College. The
question therefore is whether the discharge of
Party I by Party II is legal or whether it is in
derogation of Certified Standing Orders applicable
to the parties.
23. Clause 37 of the Certified Standing Orders
reads as follows:
‘Nothing contained in these Standing
Orders shall operate in derogation of any law
for the time being in force or to the prejudice
of any right under the contract of service,
custom or usage or an agreement, settlement
or award applicable to the establishment.’
24. The witness of Party II, Shri Vidhyadhar
Harmalkar has admitted that nothing contained in
the Certified Standing Orders shall operate in
derogation of any law for time being in force, which
means that the Certified Standing Orders cannot
override the laws in force. He also admitted that
he is aware of ‘The Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995’ but claimed that the said
Act is not applicable to Party I. He also denied the
suggestion that being Transport Undertaking, it is
covered under the said Act including the Act as
amended in 2017. He, however admitted that the
Party II is the State Transport Undertaking owned
by the Government and financed and funded by
the Government, so also that the Party II is
controlled by the Government as the Chairman of
Party II is its MLA. He, however admitted that the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995 is applicable to Kadamba Transport
Corporation. Once, it is admitted by the witness
that the Act is applicable to the Corporation, it
needs no mention that the said Act is also
applicable to the Applicant/Party I being the
employee of the Corporation. It is therefore relevant
to see whether the Party II has acted in derogation
of the said law in force.
25. Before proceeding with the matter, it requires
to quote the relevant provisions of the Act
including the definitions viz. ‘Establishment’, under
Section 2(k); ‘disability’ under Section 2(i); ‘Medical
Authority’ under Section 2(p); & ‘Non discrimination
in Government employment’ under Section 47 of
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995.
(i) “Establishment” means a Corporation
established by or under a Central, Provincial
or State Act, or an Authority or a body owned
or controlled or aided by the Government or
a local authority or a Government company
as defined in Section 617 of the Companies
Act, 1956 and included Departments of a
Government; (ii) “Disability” means (i)
blindness; (ii) Low vision; (iii) leprosy-cured;
(iv) hearing impairment; (v) locomotor
disability; (vi) mental retardation; (vii) mental
illness; (iii) “Medical Authority” means any
hospital or institution specified for the
purposes of this Act by notification by the
appropriate Government; (iv) under Section
47- Non-discrimination in Government
employment- (1) No establishment shall
dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee
who acquires a disability during his service:
provided that, if an employee, after acquiring
disability is not suitable for the post he was
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1557
holding, could be shifted to some other post
with the same pay scale and service benefits:
Provided further, that if it is not possible to
adjust the employee against any post, he may
be kept on a supernumerary post until a
suitable post is available or he attains the
age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
26. In case of Kunal Singh, supra the appellant
who was a constable in SSB had suffered injury
while he was on duty and the respondent
invalidated him from services. The Hon’ble Apex
Court observed that once it is held that the
appellant has acquired disability during his
services and if not found suitable for the post he
was holding, he could be shifted to some other
post with same pay scale and service benefits and
the order affirming order of termination was set
aside.
27. In Para 9, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed
as follows;
Chapter VI of the Act deals with
employment relating to persons with
disabilities, who are yet to secure employment.
Section 47, which falls in Chapter VIII, deals
with an employee, who is already in service
and acquires a disability during his service. It
must be borne in mind that Section 2 of the
Act has given distinct and different
definitions of “dis-ability” and “person with
disability”. It is well settled that in the same
enactment if two distinct definitions are given
defining a word/expression, they must be
understood accordingly in terms of the
definition. It must be remembered that person
does not acquire or suffer disability by choice.
An employee, who acquires disability during
his service, is sought to be protected under
Section 47 of the Act specifically. Such
employee, acquiring disability, if not protected,
would not only suffer himself, but possibly all
those who depend on him would also suffer.
The very frame and contents of Section 47
clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very
opening part of Section reads “no
establishment shall dispense with, or reduce
in rank, an employee who acquires a disability
during his service”. The Section further
provides that if an employee after acquiring
disability is not suitable for the post he was
holding, could be shifted to some other post
with the same pay scale and service benefits;
if it is not possible to adjust the employee
against any post he will be kept on a
supernumerary post until a suitable post is
available or he attains the age of
superannuation, whichever is earlier. Added
to this no promotion shall be denied to a
person merely on the ground of his disability
as is evident from sub-section (2) of Section
47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that
the employer shall not dispense with or reduce
in rank an employee who acquired a disability
during the service. In construing a provision
of social beneficial enactment that too dealing
with disabled persons intended to give them
equal opportunities, protection of rights and
full participation, the view that advances the
object of the Act and serves its purpose must
be preferred to the one which obstructs the
object and paralyses the purpose of the Act.
Language of Section 47 is plain and certain
casting statutory obligation on the employer
to protect an employee acquiring disability
during service.
28. In case of Ashok Dhondu Ahire, supra the
petitioner was declared by ophthalmic hospital as
unfit to be a peon and his employment brought to
an end and no Show cause notice was issued nor
was he heard. The Labour Court and the Industrial
Court did not consider the scheme of the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The
Hon’ble High Court allowed the petitioner by
relying the case of Kunal Singh. In Para 18 of the
judgment, the Hon’ble Judge observed thus:
18. It is apparent from the impugned
judgments that neither the Labour Court nor
the Industrial Court have considered the
scheme under the 1995 Act. The Labour Court
could not have dismissed the complaint on the
ground that because the petitioner had
developed loss of sight in one eye, he could not
have been continued in employment and
deserved to be terminated.
29. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in case of
Dilbagh Singh, supra has observed in Para 17 and
18 as under:
17. Section 47 has come up for
consideration in a number of cases, by this
Court. It has been held that it applies,
regardless of where the employee incurs the
disability; it acquires primacy, and can be
invoked, without application of laches; its
benefits have to be given even if compensation
is paid, for premature retirement of an
employee. The position emerging from the
various authorities are broadly summarized
below: (i) Laches cannot be set up to deny
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1558
relief, since the Act is a beneficial legislation:
Krishnan Chander v. DTC 2003(71) DRJ
11. (ii) The provisions of the Act have to be
given effect to in respect of grievances that
arose before enactment of the Disability Act:
Vijender Singh v. DTC 105 (2003) DLT 261;
DTC v. Harpal Singh 105(2003) DLT 113; (iii)
The provisions categorically enjoin every
employer not only to retain, and desist from
discriminating employees suffering from
impairment, but also to place them in other
posts, without depriving any service
conditions or benefits, if they are unable to
function in their posts ; DTC v. Rajbir Singh
100 (2002) DLT 111; (iv) Construction of the
Act should be made in the light of
international conventions: DTC v. Rajbir Singh
(Supra); (v) Reinstatement possible even after
premature retirement, and grant of
compensation: Baljeet Singh v. DTC 83 (2000)
DLT 286; Virender Kumar Gupta v. DTC
(Supra); Kuldeep Singh v. DTC; (vi) Benefits of
the enactment, and entitlements under
Section 47, available irrespective of where
the employee contracted the disability:
Ranbir Singh v. DTC 97 (2002) DLT 19.
18. The above analysis would show that
Section 47 was enacted as an absolute,
unalterable, non discriminatory standard to
be followed by every establishment, in relation
to their disabled employees, at the work place.
The provision is broad in its coverage, and
does not allow deviation on account of an
employer’s compulsion or inability to provide
an alternative post or employment; indeed he
is under a positive obligation to give some
work or job to the disabled employee, who
suffers injury or incurs disability, and protect
the existing terms and conditions of service,
if necessary, by keeping him “on a
supernumerary post until a suitable post is
available or he attains the age of
superannuation, whichever is earlier.” The
authorities, viz. decisions of this court serve
to underline the width and scope of the
provision. Hence, the defence of DTC that the
petitioner cannot be given employment, rings
hollow, it is unacceptable.”
30. The moot question is therefore whether the
discharge of the Applicant/Party I from services on
9-01-2013 on medically unfit ground is legal and
justified.
31. Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agrawal for the Party II has
submitted that the Party I has not pleaded violation
of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995. He also submitted that it
is settled proposition of law that the Party has to
plead the case and adduce sufficient evidence to
substantiate his submissions made in the plaint
and in case the pleadings are not complete, the
Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas.
In support thereof, he relied upon the cases of
(1) Rajasthan State TPT Corpn. & Anr. vs. Bajrang
Lal in Civil Appeal No. 4104 of 2007 dated
14-3-2014 and (2) Regional Manager, S.B.I. vs.
Rakesh Kumar Tewari, in Appeal (Civil) No. 7 of
2006 dated 3-1-2006. He further submitted that
the Party I did not dispute the discharge for more
than two years but disputed the said order before
ALC, Panaji vide his letter dated 7-9-2015. The Party
II could not consider the case of Party I for alternate
employment on account of past history and past
records of Party I.
32. However, as rightly submitted by Ld. Adv.
Shri A. Kundaikar for the Party I, the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in the case of Dilbagh Singh has held
that the laches cannot be set up to deny relief
since the Act is beneficial legislation and that
Section 47 was enacted as an absolute, unalterable,
non-discriminatory standard to be followed by every
establishment, in relation to their disabled
employees, at the workplace. Moreover, the Party II
in Para 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the Written Statement have
stated about examination of Party I by Medical
Board and that the Medical Board issued
certificates at Exb. 16 Colly(2) and Exb. 18
respectively. The contention of Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Agrawal for Party II that there are no pleadings by
Party I of violation of the said Act therefore cannot
be accepted.
33. Needless to reiterate, the Party II discharged
Party I by Order dated 9-01-2013 at Exb. 14 on the
ground that he was declared medically unfit by
Medical Board of Goa Medical College. The Medical
certificate at Exb. 18 indicates that on examination
of the Party I by the Medical Board pursuant to
letter of the Party II at Exb. 15, it found that the
Party I was suffering from chronic optic neuritis
both eyes with peripheral neuropathy, which is in
short ‘low vision’ of the eyes. The Medical
certificate at Exb. 16 Colly(2) which was issued by
the Medical Board after the Party I approached
them in terms of Clause 4(b) of the Certified
Standing Orders of the Corporation found that he
was unfit to continue working as a bus driver for
heavy vehicles as it cannot be predicted as to when
he may relapse into alcohol dependence and can
be rehabilitated as a class 4 staff.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1559
34. Needless to mention, the decision of the
Medical Board of the Government is final and
binding on the parties. Both the Medical
Certificates issued by the Medical Board at exhibit
16 Colly and Exhibit 18 show that the Party I is
unfit to continue working as a bus driver for heavy
vehicles for suffering disability in the nature of
low vision. The Party I was discharged from
services with immediate effect based on the
Medical certificate dated 23-11-2012 at Exb. 18 as
he was found suffering from Chronic Optic Neuritis
both eyes with Peripheral Neuropathy, which is
disability under Section 2 (i) of the Act, without
rehabilitating him in terms of Section 47 of the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995. The Medical certificate at Exb. 18 does not
mention that the Party I was unfit to continue his
work as heavy vehicle driver permanently or that
he had acquired the said disability prior to his
employment.
35. The Party II is admittedly a ‘State Transport
Undertaking’ owned and controlled by the
Government. Undoubtedly, the Party I was
medically fit at the time of joining the Corporation
and has acquired the said disability in the form of
low vision during the course of the employment.
There is no dispute that the provisions of the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995 is applicable to Party I. The provisions of
Section 47 clearly mandates the Party II shall not
dispense with or discharge an employee who
acquires a disability during his service and that he
should be shifted to some other post with same
pay scale and service benefits and if it is not
possible to adjust the employee against any post,
he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a
suitable post is available or he attains the age of
superannuation, whichever is earlier. The Party I
has not attained the age of superannuation as he
was 54 years of age at the time of filing his affidavit
on 29-11-2016. There is also nothing on record that
past conduct of the Party I was bad.
36. There cannot be any quarrel that the Party
II rehabilitated one Shri Galdinho Menezes, driver
stationed at Vasco depot who was entrusted with
the job of issuing log sheets; one Shri Nutan
Velingkar, driver stationed at Vasco depot who was
rehabilitated and entrusted with the job of issuing
log sheets; one Shri Datta Mayekar, driver stationed
at Vasco depot who was rehabilitated and
entrusted with the job of issuing log sheets; one
Shri Sadam Hussen, driver stationed at Vasco depot
who was rehabilitated and entrusted with the job
of diesel attendant; one Shri Avinash Rawal, driver
stationed at Panaji depot who was rehabilitated
and entrusted with the job of issuing log sheets:
one Shri Krishna Shirodkar, driver stationed at
Panaji depot who was rehabilitated and entrusted
with the job of issuing log sheets; one Shri Sundar
Zalmi, driver stationed at Panaji depot who was
rehabilitated and entrusted with the job of issuing
log sheets; one Shri Guru Shirodkar, driver
stationed at Panaji depot who was rehabilitated
and entrusted with the job of diesel attendant and
one Shri Pundalik Gaonkar, driver stationed at
Panaji depot who was rehabilitated and entrusted
with the job of diesel attendant. It is therefore
improper, unjust and illegal to discharge the
Applicant/Party I without following the provisions
of law including Certified Standing Orders on so
called medically unfit ground and therefore the
discharge of Party I from services on 9-1-2013 by
Party II is illegal and unsustainable. The Party I
having proved issue No. 1, it is answered in
affirmative.
Issue No. 2:
37. It is well settled by the Apex Court in the
case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) & Ors., 2014 II
CLR 813, that in a case of wrongful termination of
service, re-instatement with continuity of service
and back wages is the normal rule. The Apex Court
in Para 17 has observed thus:
17. The very idea of restoring an employee
to the position which he held before dismissal
or removal or termination of service implies
that the employee will be put in the same
position in which he would have been but for
the illegal action taken by the employer. The
injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed
or removed or is otherwise terminated from
service cannot easily be measured in terms of
money. With the passing of an order which
has the effect of severing the employer-
-employee relationship, the latter’s source of
income gets dried up. Not only the concerned
employee, but his entire family suffers grave
adversities. They are deprived of the source of
sustenance. The children are deprived of
nutritious food and all opportunities of
education and advancement in life. At times,
the family has to borrow from the relatives
and other acquaintance to avoid starvation.
These sufferings continue till the competent
adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of
the action taken by the employer. The
re-instatement of such an employee, which is
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1560
preceded by a finding of the competent
judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the
action taken by the employer is ultra vires the
relevant statutory provisions or the principles
of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim
full back wages. If the employer wants to deny
back wages to the employee or contest his
entitlement to get consequential benefits, then
it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove
that during the intervening period the
employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same emoluments. Denial of back
wages to an employee, who has suffered due
to an illegal act of the employer, would amount
to indirectly punishing the concerned
employee and rewarding the employer by
relieving him of the obligation to pay back
wages including the emoluments.
38. Needless to mention, the Party II had passed
the order of discharge against the Party I which
was illegal and untenable in the eyes of law as the
same was in violation of Certified Standing Orders
of the Corporation and despite the illegality, the
Party II contested the proceedings before the
Conciliation Officer and also before the Tribunal.
There was also nothing on record that the Party I
was employed from the date of discharge. The Party
I has stated in Para 10 of the affidavit that he was
unemployed after he was illegally discharged on
medical ground on 9-01-2013. It is well settled
principle that it is the employer, who has to prove
that the workman was gainfully employed during
the interregnum i.e. for the period he was kept out
of service on account of his dismissal from service
which is from 9-01-2013 till date. The Party I was
forcibly and illegally kept out of service by Party II
on specious ground that he was medically unfit
and was unable to drive heavy vehicles. Once the
discharge of the Party I is proved to have been
wrongful and illegal, re-instatement with
continuity in service and back wages is the rule.
The Party II has not pleaded or proved that in the
intervening period, the Party I was gainfully
employed and was getting the same emoluments.
It is therefore the Party I is entitled for the reliefs
claimed. Hence, the issue No. 2 is answered in
affirmative.
Issue No. 3:
39. Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agrawal for Party II has
submitted that the application is not maintainable
as it is not made by following mandate of Section
2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He also
submitted that in terms of Section 2-A(2),
notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10,
any such workman as is specified in sub-section
(1) may make an application direct to the Labour
Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute
referred to therein after the expiry of forty five days
from the date he has made the application to the
Conciliation Officer or the appropriate Government
for conciliation of the dispute, and in respect of
such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall
have powers to adjudicate upon the dispute,
provided the application referred to in sub-section
(2) is made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before
the expiry of three years from the date of discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination
of service as specified in sub-section (1) under
Section 2-A(3). He submitted that the order of
discharge at Exb. 14 was passed on 9-01-2013 and
the application under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial
Disputes Act was filed on 13-1-2016, which is
beyond three years and therefore the application
under Section 2-A(2) is not maintainable.
40. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for
Party I has submitted and rightly so that the order
of discharge dated 9-01-2013 at Exb. 14 is not final
nor the same is binding on Party I, besides the fact
that it is illegal and not issued by the appropriate
Disciplinary Authority in terms of Certified
Standing Orders. The said order of discharge dated
9-01-2013 is not final in terms of clause 4(b) of the
Certified Standing Orders in which it is clearly
mentioned that if the management discharges the
workman from duties on the ground that he is not
medically fit, the aggrieved Party is free to approach
the Medical Board of the Government against the
decision of Medical Authorities, whose decision is
final and binding on the parties. The Party I in
terms of clause 4(b) approached the Medical Board
and the Medical Board issued the certificate dated
16-7-2015 at Exb.18 Colly(2). It therefore can be
seen that the discharge order dated 9-01-2013 is
not final and the time to file the application under
Section 2-A(3) would run from the date of the
Certificate issued by Medical Board to Party I on
22-8-2015 at Exb. 16 colly(1), which would expire
on 22-8-2018 and therefore the above application
is within time. It is also well settled that latches
cannot be set up to deny relief, since the Act is a
beneficial legislation as held in the case of Krishan
Chander vs. DTC. 2004 (115) DLT 558. It is
therefore the contention of Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agrawal
that the application is not maintainable nor the
mandate of Section 2-A(2) and 2-A(3) of the
Industrial Disputes Act has been complied with,
cannot be accepted. Hence, the issue No. 3 is
answered in the negative.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1561
41. Needless to mention, the Party I has proved
violation of Certified Standing Orders of the
Corporation application to the parties, so also the
provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 by
discharging the services of the Applicant vide letter
dated 9-01-2013. There are no pleadings on behalf
of the employer that the workman was gainfully
employed after the discharge. It is also well settled
that in cases of wrongful discharge/termination of
services, re-instatement with continuity of service
and back wages is a normal rule. The services of
the Party I have been discharged and his
employment has been brought to an end on alleged
medical ground without issuing charge sheet or
adhering to principles of natural justice nor the
scheme of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 has been considered by
Party II.
42. The Party I who has been working with Party
II since last 25 years has been discriminated, while
other similarly situated drivers have been
rehabilitated, presumably by invoking the
provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995. The Party II was under
positive obligation to give work or job to the Party
I employee, who suffered the disability during the
course of his service and protect the existing terms
and conditions of service, if necessary, by shifting
him to some other post with the same pay scale
and service benefits or keeping him on a
supernumerary post until a suitable post is
available or till he attains the age of
superannuation as mandated by law. The Party II
having wrongfully discharged the Party I from
service, re-instatement with continuity in service
and back wages has to be awarded to him. The
Party I is therefore entitled for the reliefs claimed.
43. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The application filed by Party I workman
under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act stands allowed.
ii. It is hereby held that the action of the
management of M/s Kadamba Transport
Corporation Limited, Porvorim, Goa in
discharging the services of Party I, Shri Arun
Mairekar, driver attached to Margao Depot
with effect from 9-01-2013 on medically unfit
ground is illegal and unjustified.
iii. The Party II is directed to reinstate the
services of Party I, Shri Arun Mairekar, driver
attached to Margao Depot with full back
wages and continuity in services with
consequential benefits attached to the post.
iv. The Party II is directed to deposit full back
wages before the Tribunal from the date of
discharge till date of re-instatement in the
services within 60 days of the publication
of the Award, failing which the Party II shall
pay an interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of discharge till the date of actual re-
instatement of services of Party I.
v. Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva),
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-III/643
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 09-08-2017 in reference
No. IT/15/11 is hereby published as required by
Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 12th September, 2017.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/15/11
Shri Anant V. Velip,
Since deceased, represented
by his L.R.’s,
1a. Smt. Archana Anant Velip,
1b. Ms. Krupa Anant Velip,
1c. Master Chaitan Anant Velip
All r/o. H. No. 27, Bendurdem,
Balli, Quepem-Goa.
… Workman/Party-I
V/s
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1562
M/s. Adarsh Krishi Sahakari Kharedi
Vikri Prakriya Saunstha Maryadit,
Balli, Quepem-Goa.
… Employer/Party-II
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri S. K.
Manjrekar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri A.V.
Nigalye.
Panaji, dated: 09-08-2017.
AWARD
1. In Exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 11-07-2011,
bearing No. 28/09/2011-LAB, referred the following
dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal
of Goa. The reference was thereafter transferred to
this Labour Court II for its adjudication by the
Appropriate Government, vide its order dated
09-02-2016.
“(1) Whether the action of the Management
of M/s. Adarsh Krishi Sahakari Kharedi
Vikri Prakriya Saunstha Maryadit, Balli,
Quepem-Goa, in terminating the services of
Shri Anant Vithoba Velip, Secretary, with
effect from 28-11-2009, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/15/2011 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the parties put in their
appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short
“Workman”), filed his Statement of Claim on
22-09-2011 at Exb. 6. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that he was
employed with the Employer/Party-II (for short
“Employer”) since March, 1993 and was designated
as Secretary. He stated that though he has been
designated as Secretary, neither he has been elected
as a member of the said establishment nor
performed the duties of administrative, executive
or supervisory in nature. He stated that
subsequently all of sudden and without any
justification, he was demoted and designated as
an ‘Accountant’ and was directed to take the charge
of Accountant against the vacant post w.e.f.
19-04-2008. He stated that on and from 19-04-2008,
he was not working as Secretary of the Employer,
but was working as an Accountant and performing
the duties related to the accounts of the Employer.
He stated that the activities and nature of business
carried out by the Employer are also of financial
and commercial. He stated that the Employer is
generating the funds by charging the amount and
also earning income/profit. He stated that his duties
were to withdraw the sizeable amount of liquid
cash from the bank located at Margao and bring
the said cash to the office of the Employer at Balli
and vice-versa, to deposit the amount into the banks
at Margao or Cuncoliem.
3. He stated that on 10-04-2008, he was asked by
the Employer to withdraw a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-
from the ICICI Bank, Margao and bring the said
liquid cash to the Employer’s office at Balli. He
stated that in pursuance of the said directions, he
withdrew the said amount from the ICICI Bank,
Margao branch and while returning to the office of
the Employer at Balli on his own scooter, he took
a halt at Cuncolim near bus stand to repair his
mobile. He stated that thereafter, he proceeded to
the Employer’s office, at Balli. He stated that after
reaching the office, he was shocked to know that
a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was stolen/misplaced/lost
from the said amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He stated
that he therefore immediately filed a police
complaint to that effect at the Cuncoliem Police
Station and also informed the Employer. He stated
that the Employer has however, illegally shown
the said misplaced/stolen/lost amount of
Rs. 4,00,000/- as his loan and started charging the
interest/cost on the said misplaced amount as if he
had obtained the loan from the Employer. He stated
that thereafter the Employer started harassing him
to built up the ground against him.
4. He stated that the Employer, thereafter, by its
letter dated 28-10-2008 suspended him from its
service w.e.f. 20-10-2008. He stated that the
Employer manipulated the accounts and claimed
that he had made some irregularities. He stated
that the Employer also deliberately and
intentionally maligned his image and reputation
within the local area. He stated that in view of the
aforesaid act of the Employer, he not only suffered
mental agony, but also financial hardships.
5. He stated that the Employer terminated his
services w.e.f. 28-11-2009 vide its letter dated
11-12-2009 without seeking any explanation and/
/or by conducting an enquiry by issuing an charge-
sheet. He challenged his termination of service by
raising a dispute before the Conciliation Officer,
Margao. He stated that as he was facing financial
hardship due to his unemployment, he also raised
issue of non-payment of subsistence allowance
before the said authority. He stated that it is as per
the directions of the said authority he was paid
subsistence allowance by the Employer. He stated
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1563
that however the calculations made by the
Employer is also wrong. He stated that he
requested the Employer to rectify the said error
appearing in the calculation, however, the
Employer has not paid any attention to the same.
He stated that the Employer has however not only
deferred the payment of subsistence allowance
during the period of suspension, but also prohibited
to withdraw the said amount from his bank account
by giving directions to its cashier to adjust the
said amount of subsistence allowance to his alleged
loan liabilities.
6. The Workman contended that his termination
from service is illegal and bad-in-law and deserves
to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that
however, neither proper show-cause notice, charge-
-sheet was issued to him nor conducted an enquiry
thereby violated the principles of natural justice.
He submitted that he was not even paid the
subsistence allowance during the period of
suspension. He submitted that however, a farce of
enquiry was conducted in total violation of the
principles of natural justice. He submitted that the
Employer has not followed the provisions of Section
25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947, while terminating his
services. He submitted that his termination from
service amounts to victimization and unfair labour
practice. He submitted that he was the only
earning member in his family. He stated that after
termination of his services he tried his level best
to secure another employment, however, he was
not succeeded in getting employment. The
Workman therefore prayed that his order of
termination from service be set aside and he may
be reinstated in service with full back wages and
consequential benefits thereof.
7. The Employer resisted the claim of the Party
I by filing its written statement on 03-04-2012 at
Exb. 8. The Employer, as and by way of its
preliminary objections, submitted that the
reference is not maintainable in law as well as on
facts of the case, that this Hon’ble Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the reference,
that the reference is illegal and has been made
without application of mind, that it is a
co-operative society registered under the
Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 as applied to the
State of Goa and now governed by the Goa
Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 and that the said
Act is a complete code in itself, which provides for
all matters relating to co-operative societies
including resolution of disputes, hence, the
authorities under the I.D. Act have no jurisdiction
to deal with matters relating to the employees of
a co-operative societies. The Employer submitted
that the Party I is not a ‘workman’ within the
meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and
that he was employed in managerial, administrative
and supervisory capacity. The Employer also
submitted that the Party I had no cause of action
for raising the matter before the Conciliation
Officer and for pursuing the matter before this
Hon’ble Court.
8. The Employer stated that it is engaged in the
purchase and sale of agricultural products such as
paddy, coconuts, cashew, cereals, spices and other
agricultural products produced by its members and
other agriculturists in the territory. The Employer
stated that it is engaged in these activities to
provide remunerative prices to the agriculturists
and horticulturists for their produce. The Employer
stated that it is also engaged in the sale of consumer
and other goods in order to provide the said goods
to the public at reasonable rate. The Employer
stated that it also advances loans to the needy
persons at reasonable rates. The Employer stated
that it is also engaged in processing of agricultural
produce for its value addition. The Employer stated
that it has been established for the purpose of
rendering help and assistance to the agriculturists
and for providing remunerative prices for their
products. The Employer stated that it is also
engaged in educating the farmers about the
advanced technology and other matters relating
to agriculture. The Employer submitted that it is
not an “industry” and its establishments are not
“industrial establishments”. The Employer stated
that it is carrying out its aforesaid activities through
its head office and branches situated in different
parts of Goa.
9. The Employer stated that the Party I was
employed with them as Secretary. The Employer
stated that he was its senior most salaried officer
and was in control of its management and
administration. The Employer stated that the
Party I was involved with day to day management
and administration affairs and supervision of the
employees working under him. The Employer
stated that the duties of the Party I were to look
after the day to day management and
administration of the business and affairs, operating
its accounts and be responsible for making
arrangements for safe custody of cash and
properties, making arrangement for proper
maintenance of its various books and records,
convening the meetings of its General Body, Board
of Directors and Committees in consultation with
its Chairman and maintaining proper records of
such meetings, assisting its Board of Directors in
the formation of policies and planning, furnishing
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1564
to the board the information regarding its
operation and function, to sign and issue its
cheques, to be the custodian of the records,
common seal, stock and its other properties, to
issue notices and to attend all its meetings, to
arrange proper accounts and its registers as
prescribed under the relevant laws and for
assisting the auditors in auditing its affairs, to
scrutinize the loan applications and other
documents and place them before its Board of
Directors and to take for its recovery of the dues for
debtors and customers.
10.
The Employer stated that on 10-04-2008,
the Party I took two cheques, one bearing
No. 586570 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and another
cheque bearing No. 586571 for sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-
both dated 10-04-2008 from its cashier,
Mr. Pauto Gaonkar to withdraw the cash. The
Employer stated that the Party I withdrawn the
said cheques from its ICICI, Margao branch,
however, when the cashier requested him to
deposit the said amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, he
deposited only Rs. 1,00,000/- by contending that
the remaining amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was stolen
in transit. The Employer stated that the Workman
contended that he had kept the money in the tool
box of his scooter after withdrawing the same from
the bank, that while returning on his scooter, he
stopped near the bus stand at Cuncoliem for repair
of his mobile, that he went inside the shop and
returned immediately, that when he returned at
the head office at Bali and opened the tool box, he
found the bag containing Rs. 1,00,000/- and that a
sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- kept in another tool box was
missing. The Employer submitted that the aforesaid
version of the Party I is ex-facie false and was
intended to justify the misappropriation of the said
sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-.
11. The Employer stated that on 21-11-2007, the
Party I granted a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- to himself
and transferred the said amount to his account
from their account without the knowledge of its
board of directors. The Employer stated that it was
an established practice in its organization that the
applications for loan received by them were
required to be scrutinized by the Secretary, who
had to ensure that the applications were properly
made in all respects with the names and signatures
of the applicant and his sureties signed before the
issuing authority, submission all necessary
documents, remarks of the Branch Manager and
submission of the loan file to its board of directors
for sanction of loan. The Employer stated that only
after the board approved the loan, a sanction letter
was issued to the loanee and only thereafter the
loan was disbursed to the applicant. The Employer
stated that the said procedure was totally flouted
by the Party I in transferring the said amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- to his own account. The Employer
stated that he was the authorized signatory for
signing the cheques and was responsible for
approval of the cash on their behalf.
12. The Employer stated that on 10-09-2009, a
sum of Rs. 57,157/- was pending against his name
in their account. The Employer stated that this
includes an advance towards purchases of
Rs. 13,931/- in respect of which he failed to submit
the bills, an outstanding amount of Rs.1,875/-
towards fertilizers and salary advance of Rs. 41,361/-.
The Employer submitted that the said amount of
Rs. 57,157/- has been misappropriated by the
Party I. The Employer stated that a sum of
Rs. 26,44,802/- is receivable by them from its
creditors/customers. The Employer stated that the
sale transaction in respect of the aforesaid goods
were done by the Party I keeping its board of
directors in the dark and without maintaining
proper records of the creditors. The Employer stated
that it was the duty and responsibility of the
Party I to recover the said amount from the
customers and keep proper records of all
transactions. The Employer submitted that the
aforesaid acts and omissions of Party I amounts
to dereliction of duties, negligence and
misappropriation of funds.
13. The Employer stated that the Party I had
mortgaged a plot of land identified as plot D in the
property bearing survey No. 53/1 admeasuring
215 sq. mts. situated at Balli village. The Employer
stated that the Party I sold the said plot to
Shri Vinod Yeshwant Komarpant and Mrs. Vidya
Vinod Komarpant without its permission, thus it
has lost a valuable security.
14. The Employer submitted that all the
aforesaid acts constitutes misconduct on the part
of the Party I. The Employer submitted that the
post held by the Party I for the position of trust.
The Employer submitted that by his conduct, the
Party I proved to be untrustworthy and it was not
possible to retain such person in its employment.
The Employer stated that after the aforesaid act of
the Party I came to light, it conducted an enquiry
wherein the illegal acts of the Party I were
confirmed. The Employer stated that it has also
called the explanation from the Party I regarding
his conduct. The Employer stated that however,
the Party I could not give satisfactory explanation
to the queries put to him in the enquiry. The
Employer stated that thereafter, by letter dated
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1565
10-12-2009, it has terminated the services the
Party I w.e.f. 20-11-2009. The Employer submitted
that it lost confidence and trust in the Party I and
as such it could not retain Party I in its service.
The Employer submitted that the termination of
service of the Party I is therefore just, proper and
legal. The Employer therefore prayed for passing
an award dismissing the claim of the Party I and
holding that the termination of service of the Party
I by them is legal and justified and that the Party
I is not entitled to any relief.
15. Thereafter, the Party I filed his rejoinder on
26-06-2012 at Exb. 09. The Party-I, by way of his Re-
joinder, confirms and reiterates all the submissions
and averments made by him in his claim statement
to be true and correct and denies all the statements
and averments made by the Employer in the
Written Statement, which are contrary to the
statements and averments made by him.
16. Based on the pleadings filed by the
respective parties hereinabove, the Hon’ble
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court framed the
following issues on 28-07-2014 at Exb.19.
1. Whether the Party I proves that he is a
‘workman’ under the purview of Section
2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947?
2. Whether the Party I proves that termination
of his services by Party II is totally illegal,
unjustified, in violation of Section 25F of
I.D. Act and is carried out with the sole
intention to harass and victimize him?
3. Whether the Party I proves that despite his
suspension he was not paid subsistence
allowance till the termination of his service?
4. Whether the Party I proves that after
termination of his services he tried his level
best to get another employment but did
not succeed?
5. Whether the Party II proves that authorities
under the I.D. Act have no jurisdiction to
deal with the matter relating to the
employees of a co-operative society since
the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 is
a complete code in itself?
6. What relief? What Award?
17. Thereafter, the Party I filed his affidavit-in-
-evidence and produced on record certain
documents in support of his case. He was partly
cross-examined by the Ld. Advocate for the
Employer. The Party I expired on 06-08-2016,
pending
his
further
cross-examination.
On 27-06-2017, Ld. Adv. Shri S. K. Manjrekar,
representing the legal heirs of the deceased
Workman as well as Ld. Adv. Shri A. V. Nigalye
appearing for the Employer remained present and
submitted that the parties have settled the matter
amicably and prayed for passing of the consent
award in terms of the settlement and produced on
record the consent terms at Exb.41 duly signed by
both the parties. I have carefully perused the
consent terms filed by the parties herein above
and is of the opinion that the said consent terms
are beneficial to the Workman and hence,
consented to the same.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. In view of the amicable settlement between
the parties herein above, it is held that the
action of the Management of M/s. Adarsh
Krishi Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Prakriya
Saunstha Maryadit, Balli, Quepem-Goa, in
terminating the services of Shri Anant
Vithoba Velip, Secretary, with effect from
28-11-2009, is legal and justified, does not
survive.
2. The workman Shri Anant Vithoba Velip, is
not entitled to any relief.
3. No order as to costs
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II
———u———
Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers
__
Notice
No. IFB/BAE/(A-220)2017
The Board of Examiners under the Boiler
Operation Engineers Rules, 2011 declares the
following candidates to have passed in the
examinations conducted between 11th September,
2017 to 15th September, 2017, for certificate of
proficiency as Boiler Operation Engineers.
Sr.
Name of the candidates
No.
1.
Shri Suman Chattoraj.
2.
Shri Suraj Subhash Chodankar.
R. T. Korgaonkar, Secretary, Board of Examiners
under B.O.E. Rules, 2011.
Altinho, Panaji, 15th September, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1566
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
__
Order
No. 2/49/2015-LD(Estt)/1240
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission (GPSC) as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/55(2)/2015/593 dated 02-08-2017,
Government is pleased to promote Smt. Aarti Anil
Parvatkar, Head Clerk/UDC to the post of Civil
Registrar-cum-Sub-Registrar on regular basis in the
Pay Band 2, Rs. 9,300-34,800+ Grade Pay Rs. 4,200/-
(Level-6 as per 7th Pay Commission) and other
allowances to be fixed as per rules with immediate
effect.
The above Officer shall be on probation for a
period of two years.
Consequent upon her promotion, she shall
continue to work at place where she was presently
working on ad hoc basis.
Salary shall be drawn against Budget
Head
2030—Stamps
and
Registration,
03—Registration, 001—Direction and Adminis-
-tration, 02—District Charges, 01—Salaries. She shall
exercise her option for fixation of the pay in the
promotional grade in terms of FR 22 (I) (a) (1) within
a period of one month from the date of their promotion
as Civil Registrar-cum-Sub-Registrar. The option
once exercised shall be final.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Anju S. Kerkar, Under Secretary (Estt.).
Porvorim, 4th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 8/34/2005-LD(Estt.)/Part I/1250
Read: 1) Order No. 2/59/2015-LD(Estt.)/827 dated
25-04-2016.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission (GPSC) conveyed vide their
letter No. COM/II/11/55(3)/2015/592 dated
02-08-2017, approval of the Government is hereby
accorded for extension of ad hoc promotion to the
following Civil Registrars-cum-Sub-Registrars on
the same terms and conditions cited in order
No. (1) referred to in the preamble.
Sr.
Name of the Officers
Period of extension
No.
for interim period
1. Smt. Freeda J. B. Gomes-CRSR
26-04-2017 to
24-07-2017.
2. Shri Domingos Martins-CRSR
26-04-2017 to
24-07-2017.
3. Smt. Sunanda T. Gauns-CRSR
26-04-2017 to
24-07-2017.
This issues with the approval of the Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Anju S. Kerkar, Under Secretary (Estt.).
Porvorim, 4th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 6-1-2014-LD(Estt)/1254
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission (GPSC) as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/55(1)/2017/716 dated 12-07-2017,
Government is pleased to promote the following
Civil Registrar-cum-Sub-Registrar to the post of
District Registrar on regular basis in the Pay Band 3,
Rs.15,600-39,100/- + Grade Pay Rs. 5,400/- (Level-9
as per 7th Pay Commission) and other allowances to
be fixed as per rules with immediate effect:
1. Shri Vasudev T. Hadkonkar.
The above Officer shall be on probation for a
period of two years.
Consequent upon his promotion, he shall continue
to work at place where he was presently working on
ad hoc basis.
The expenditure towards the Salary and other
allowances shall be debited under the Demand
No. 10 Budget Head 2030— Stamps and Registration,
03—Registration, 001—Direction and Adminis-
tration, 01—Superintendence, 01—Salaries. He shall
exercise their option for fixation of the pay in the
promotional grade in terms of FR 22 (I) (a) (1) within
a period of one month from the date of their promotion
as District Registrar. The option once exercised shall
be final.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Anju S. Kerkar, Under Secretary (Estt.).
Porvorim, 12th September, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1567
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 15/6/2003-PER(Part)/2669
On recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by Goa Public
Service Commission vide its letter No. COM/II/11/
/42(2)/2017/831 dated 24-8-2017, the Governor of Goa
is pleased to promote following officers in the cadre
of Mamlatdars/Joint Mamlatdars/Assistant Director
of Civil Supplies, Group ‘B’ Gazetted in Level-7 of
pay matrix, with immediate effect.
Sr.
Name of the Officer
No.
1.
Shri Nathan Leonard Afonso.
2.
Smt. Deona Pereira.
3.
Shri Rajesh G. Sakhalkar.
4.
Shri Shailendra J. Dessai.
The pay of the above mentioned officers shall be
fixed as per C.C.S.(RP) Rules, 2016 and they shall
exercise option within one month from the date of
issue of this Order.
The officers shall be on probation for a period of
two years from the date of their joining.
Ms. Priya S. Samant @ Priya V. Kamat is promoted
to the cadre of Mamlatdars/Joint Mamlatdars/
/Assistant Director of Civil Supplies, Group ‘B’
Gazetted in the pay scale Level-7, “on officiating
basis” against the vacancy of one officer whose
recommendation is kept in Sealed Cover until further
order.
On promotion, the officers shall continue to hold
the posts presently held by them.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 7th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 5/3/2017-PER/2731
Read: Order No. 5/3/2017-PER dated 05-09-2017.
The salary of the Officers mentioned in column 2
promoted to Junior Scale of Goa Civil Service vide
order read in preamble shall be adjusted against the
Junior Scale posts mentioned in column 3 with effect
from the date of accepting the promotion until
further order.
Sr.
Name and feeder grade
Pending posting,
No.
of the promoted Officer
salary to be drawn
against the post of
1
2
3
1. Smt. Nayan Moroscar,
Deputy Director
Superintendent of
(Admn.), Social
Excise
Welfare.
2. Shri A. S. Mahatme,
Deputy Director
Asst. Registrar of Co-op.
(Admn.), Fisheries.
Societies
3. Shri Ramesh P. Naik,
Deputy Director
Asst. Registrar of
(Admn.), Art and
Co-op. Societies
Culture.
4.. Smt. Darshani Samir
Deputy Director (Admn.),
Dessai,
State Registrar &
Commercial Tax Officer
Notary Services.
5. Shri Amir Yeshwant Parab, Deputy Director
BDO
(Admn.), Town &
Country Planning.
6. Shri Raju Rogunath Dessai, Deputy Director
Technical Officer
(Admn.), Planning &
Statistics.
This is issued with the approval of the Chief
Secretary.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 12th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 7/13/2015-PER/2744
Read: Order No. 14020/03/2017.UTS-I dated
29-05-2017.
The Governor of Goa is pleased to relieve Shri
Virendra Kumar, IAS (AGMUT: 2006), Resident
Commissioner, Goa Sadan, from this Administration
with effect from 13-09-2017 (f.n.) to take up his new
assignment at Government of NCT of Delhi.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 12th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 13/6/2015-PER/2751
Whereas, the Government vide Order No. 13/6/
/2015-PER/1218 dated 28-04-2017 was pleased to
grant extension in services to Shri Bhaskar G.
Nayak, Principal, Government College of Arts,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1568
Science and Commerce, Quepem with additional
charge of Director, Higher Education, Porvorim for
a period of one month w.e.f. 01-05-2017 to 31-05-2017
subject to Vigilance Clearance, concurrence of
Finance Department and approval of Cabinet;
And whereas, the Vigilance Department has now
submitted Vigilance Clearance stating that no
Disciplinary Proceedings/Vigilance cases are
pending or being contemplated against Shri Nayak.
And whereas, the Finance Department vide its
U. O. No. 1400031608 dated 28-06-2017 has
submitted that the proposal being fate accompli,
may process the proposal in terms of Rule 7 (2) of
Rules of Business of Government of Goa, 1991;
And whereas, the Council of Ministers in its
XIVth meeting held on 06-09-2017 has approved to
grant ex-post facto approval for extension in service
beyond superannuation to Shri Bhaskar G. Nayak,
Principal, Government College of Arts, Science and
Commerce, Quepem with additional charge of
Director, Higher Education, Porvorim for a period of
one month w.e.f. 01-05-2017 to 31-05-2017.
Now, therefore, the Government is pleased to
grant extension in service beyond superannuation
to Shri Bhaskar G. Nayak, Principal, Government
College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Quepem
with additional charge of Director, Higher
Education, Porvorim for a period of one month w.e.f.
01-05-2017 to 31-05-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-
-II).
Porvorim, 14th September, 2017.
________
Corrigendum
No. 7/13/2015-PER
Read: Order No. 7/13/2015-PER dated 12-09-2017.
In the Order referred to in the preamble, the
phrase “w.e.f. 13-09-2017 (F.N.)” shall be substituted
to read as “w.e.f. 15-09-2017 (A.N.)”.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 15th September, 2017.
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 25/2/2014-I/PHD/Part/1605
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/12/24(11)/17/797 dated 09-08-2017, Government
is pleased to declare satisfactory completion of
probation period of two years of the following Senior
Gynaecologist under Directorate of Health Services
and also to confirm him against the said post with
effect from the date of his completion of probation
period indicated against his name:
Sr.
Name of the Doctor
Date of completion
No.
of probation period
1.
Dr. Mahendra Ghanekar,
18-10-2011.
Senior Gynaecologist
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-
-II).
Porvorim, 7th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 25/2/2014-I/PHD/1606
Read: Order No. 8-2-93-I/PHD dated 09-07-1999.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/11/12/24(7)/17/754 dated 25-07-2017, Government
is pleased to confirm Dr. Deepak Dhond against the
post of Junior Radiologist under Directorate of
Health Services with effect from 01-04-1995 i.e. the
date of his completion of probation period.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-
-II).
Porvorim, 7th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 44/14/2017-I/PHD/1607
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/12/24(8)/17/800 dated 09-08-2017, Government is
pleased to declare satisfactory completion of
probation period of two years of the following Senior
Radiologists under Directorate of Health Services
and also to confirm them against the said post with
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1569
effect from the date of completion of their probation
period indicated against their names:
Sr.
Name of the Doctor
Date of completion
No.
of probation period
1.
Dr. Angelica Siona Gomes,
09-9-1993.
Senior Radiologist
2.
Dr. Shirley Ribeiro,
22-12-2011.
Senior Radiologist
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-
-II).
Porvorim, 7th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 11/4/2017-IV/PHD
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/11/14(2)/2017/834 dated 24-08-2017, Government
is pleased to promote Dr. Paul Chalakkal, Lecturer in
Pedodontics to the post of Assistant Professor in
Pedodontics in Goa Dental College and Hospital,
Bambolim on regular basis in the Level-11 of Pay
Matrix and other allowances to be fixed as per rules
with immediate effect.
The promotion is made against the vacancy
occurred due to promotion of Dr. John S. L. Rodrigues,
Assistant Professor to the post of Professor in
Pedodontics, Goa Dental College and Hospital, vide
Order No. 11/3/89-IV/PHD/4 dated 24-05-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 44/19/2017-I/PHD/Part/1617
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/12/24(9)/17/798 dated 9-08-2017, Government is
pleased to declare satisfactory completion of
probation period of two years of the following Senior
Ophthalmic Surgeons under Directorate of Health
Services and also to confirm them against the said
post with effect from the date of completion of their
probation period indicated against their names:
Sr.
Name of the Doctor
Date of completion
No.
of probation period
1.
Dr. Saleena Naik,
17-2-2006.
Senior Ophthalmic Surgeon
2.
Dr. Conrad D’Sa,
19-10-2011.
Senior Ophthalmic Surgeon
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-
-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 44/17/2014-I/PHD/1618
Read: Order No. 8/56/91-I/PHD dated 06-2-1996.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/12/24(4)/17/757 dated 25-07-2017, Government is
pleased to confirm Dr. Swati Mulgaonkar against the
post of Junior Anaesthetist under Directorate of
Health Services with effect from 28-10-1993 i.e. the
date of completion of her probation period.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 25/2/2014-I/PHD/Part-I/1619
Read: Order No. 9-24-94-I/PHD dated 30-08-1999.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/11/12/24(6)/17/753 dated 25-07-2017, Government
is pleased to confirm Dr. Doreen Dias against the
post of Senior Psychiatrist under Directorate of
Health Services with effect from 31-03-1996 i.e. the
date of her completion of probation period.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-
-II).
Porvorim, 7th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 4/4/2007-II/PHD/Part/1166
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 25
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2017
1570
/II/11/30(4)/2015/759 dated 25-07-2017, Government
is pleased to promote Dr. Ankush Balasaheb Patil,
Assistant Lecturer to the post of Lecturer in the
Department of Forensic Medicine in Goa Medical
College and Hospital, Bambolim on regular basis in
the Level 11 of Pay Matrix and other allowances to
be fixed as per rules with immediate effect.
The promotion is made against the vacancy
occurred due to promotion of Dr. Kantak Mandar to
the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of
Forensic Medicine in Goa Medical College vide Order
No. 4/4/2007-II/PHD/Part II dated 03-06-2015.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 12th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 47/1/2011-I/PHD/1669
Read: 1. Order No. 47/1/2011-I/PHD dated 12-6-2012.
2. Order No. 47/1/2011-I/PHD dated 22-8-2013.
3. Order No. 47/1/2011-I/PHD dated 10-9-2014.
4. Order No. 47/1/2011-I/PHD dated 18-6-2015.
5. Order No. 47/1/2011-I/PHD dated 19-7-2016.
Ex-post facto approval of the Government is
hereby conveyed for extension of deputation of
Dr. Vasco Teles, Medical Officer, North Goa District
Hospital, Mapusa under Directorate of Health
Services as Medical Officer (Male) in Central Jail,
Colvale for further period from 12-06-2017 to
30-06-2017 as a special case, subject to the condition
that he shall not be entitled to draw deputation
allowances.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 14th September, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Transport
Directorate of Transport
__
Corrigendum
No. D.Tpt/EST/1997/(PF)2017/3174
Read: Notification No. D.Tpt/EST/1997/(PF)2017/
/1775 dated 06-07-2017.
The following name of Directors on Board of
Directors of Kadamba Transport Corporation Limited
appearing at Sl. No. 1, 6 and 7 be corrected to read
as follows:
1. Shri Samil Audumber Volvaiker, Keni, Colony,
Corlim, Tiswadi-Goa.
2. Shri Shivdas Ramnath Shirodkar, Nachinola,
Aldona, Bardez-Goa.
3. Shri Shivaji Narayan Gauns, Bhati, Anjuna,
Bardez-Goa.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nikhil Desai, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary
(Transport).
Panaji, 13th September, 2017.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 22.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–233/350–9/2017.