Panaji, 14th December, 2017 (Agrahayana 23, 1939)
SERIES II No. 37
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
1919
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Animal Husbandry &
Veterinary Services
Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary
Services
Goa State Veterinary Council
—
Order
No. GSVC/F-8/2017-18
Live Registered members in the SVPR as
on 01-04-2017
In supersession of all earlier orders, the following
Registered Veterinarians are eligible to practice
Veterinary Medicine in the State of Goa.
Sr.
Regn.
Name of Doctor
Practicing
No.
No.
validity
upto
1
2
3
4
1.
GSVC/05
Dr. V. J. Thomas
31-03-2022
2.
GSVC/10
Dr. Fernando Furtado 31-03-2022
3.
GSVC/14
Dr. Hari N. Singh
31-03-2022
4.
GSVC/17
Dr. P G. Bhakale
31-03-2022
5.
GSVC/18
Dr. T. T. Naik
31-03-2022
6.
GSVC/19
Dr. Ashok H. Raikar
31-03-2022
7.
GSVC/23
Dr. Ernest V. D’ Costa 31-03-2022
8.
GSVC/24
Dr. V. L. Bhaje
31-03-2022
9.
GSVC/25
Dr. Benjamin Braganza 31-03-2022
10.
GSVC/26
Dr. D. R. P. Menezes
31-03-2022
11.
GSVC/27
Dr. N. S. A. H. Faleiro 31-03-2022
12.
GSVC/28
Dr. A. D. P. Verlekar
31-03-2022
13.
GSVC/29
Dr. V. N. Malkarnekar 31-03-2022
14.
GSVC/30
Dr. P. P. Dhungat
31-03-2022
15.
GSVC/31
Dr. S. M. Naik
31-03-2022
16.
GSVC/32
Dr. U. V. T. Pednekar
31-03-2022
17.
GSVC/34
Dr. D. Naik Parrikar
31-03-2022
18.
GSVC/35
Dr. Gustavo R. Pinto
31-03-2022
19.
GSVC/36
Dr. R.V. Jog
31-03-2022
20.
GSVC/38
Dr. Marilyn A.
31-03-2022
Estibeiro
21.
GSVC/39
Dr. Greta Costa
31-03-2022
22.
GSVC/40
Dr. R. H.
31-03-2022
Prabhugaonkar
23.
GSVC/41
Dr. Rohidas D. Naik
31-03-2022
24.
GSVC/42
Dr. P. M. Rane
31-03-2022
25.
GSVC/43
Dr. R. B. Dhuri
31-03-2022
26.
GSVC/44
Dr. G. M. Umarye
31-03-2022
27.
GSVC/45
Dr. Marwin Lopes
31-03-2022
28.
GSVC/46
Dr. Prashant V. Naik
31-03-2022
29.
GSVC/47
Dr. Agostinho Misquita 31-03-2022
30.
GSVC/49
Dr. Mahendra A. Bale 31-03-2022
31.
GSVC/50
Dr. Agnelo H. Andrade
31-03-2022
32.
GSVC/51
Dr. Vilas M. Naik
31-03-2022
33.
GSVC/52
Dr. Satyawan B. Naik 31-03-2022
34.
GSVC/53
Dr. Salvador Vaz
31-03-2022
35.
GSVC/54
Dr. Rajaram N. Naik
31-03-2022
36.
GSVC/55
Dr. Santosh V. Desai
31-03-2022
37.
GSVC/56
Dr. Mahadev N. Naik 31-03-2022
38.
GSVC/63
Dr. Anil N. Phadte
31-03-2022
39.
GSVC/64
Dr. Veena S. Kumar
31-03-2022
40.
GSVC/67
Dr. S. K. Betkekar
31-03-2022
41.
GSVC/69
Dr. Rajesh G. Kenny
31-03-2022
42.
GSVC/70
Dr. Vaikunth S. Naik
31-03-2018
43.
GSVC/71
Dr. Ramdas S. Naik
31-03-2018
44.
GSVC/73
Dr. Pramod L. Shirodkar
31-03-2019
45.
GSVC/74
Dr. Maria Lucia De Sa 31-03-2019
46.
GSVC/77
Dr. Carmo Costa Viegas 31-03-2019
47.
GSVC/79
Dr. Navso C. Sawant
31-03-2019
48.
GSVC/84
Dr. Nitin S. Naik
31-03-2020
49.
GSVC/85
Dr. Mariella Afonso
31-03-2020
50.
GSVC/86
Dr. Shrikant M. Naik
31-03-2020
51.
GSVC/87
Dr. Tushar A.
31-03-2021
Gaunekar
Note:-
There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 36 dated 07-12-2017 namely,
Extraordinary dated 08-12-2017 from pages
1917 to 1918 regarding Notifications from
Department of Finance.
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1920
52.
GSVC/90
Dr. Shirish S. Gaonkar 31-03-2021
53.
GSVC/92
Dr. Eaknath B. R.
31-03-2021
Chakurkar
54.
GSVC/94
Dr. Jenny E.
31-03-2022
Fernandes
55.
GSVC/95
Dr. Brijesh N. Naik
31-03-2022
56.
GSVC/97
Dr. Prakash V.
31-03-2022
Korgaonkar
57.
GSVC/98
Dr. Sameer Sawant
31-03-2022
58.
GSVC/101 Dr. T. Kiran Kumar
31-03-2018
59.
GSVC/102 Dr. Sukhadeo B.
31-03-2019
Barbuddhe
60.
GSVC/104 Dr. Naik Anuradha A. 31-03-2019
61.
GSVC/105 Dr. Fernandes
31-03-2019
Atanazia T.
62.
GSVC/109 Dr. Yogesh Shrikant
31-03-2020
Naik
63.
GSVC/112 Dr. Sayed A.
31-03-2021
Hazmodin
64.
GSVC/113 Dr. Menezes
31-03-2021
Rameela Maria P.
65.
GSVC/114 Dr. Bhokre C.
31-03-2021
Mohanrao
66.
GSVC/115 Dr. Sudhir Kumar
31-03-2021
67.
GSVC/118 Dr. Almeida Astrid
31-03-2021
Georgina
68.
GSVC/119 Dr. Rama G. Parab
31-03-2021
69.
GSVC/122 Dr. Reshmi Bhaskaran 31-03-2022
70.
GSVC/123 Dr. Viegas Aneesh
31-03-2018
George
71.
GSVC/125 Dr. Fiona Inacia Ferrao
31-03-2019
72.
GSVC/126 Dr. Richmark Igni
31-03-2019
Fernandes
73.
GSVC/127 Dr. Nikhil V.
31-03-2019
Prabhugaonkar
74.
GSVC/129 Dr. Priya Goswami
31-03-2020
75.
GSVC/130 Dr. Deborah M.
31-03-2020
Rodrigues
76.
GSVC/131 Dr. Manik Dattatray
31-03-2020
Patil
77.
GSVC/133 Dr. Divakar R.
31-03-2020
Mavalankar
78.
GSVC/134 Dr. Charlette
31-03-2020
E. Fernandes
79.
GSVC/136 Dr. Jill Anne Aranha 31-03-2020
80.
GSVC/138 Dr. Natasha Shetye
31-03-2021
81.
GSVC/139 Dr. Priya Pradeep
31-03-2021
Shetye
82.
GSVC/140 Dr. Suvarnaraj Naik
31-03-2022
Gaonkar
83.
GSVC/141 Dr. Narendra Naik
31-03-2018
84.
GSVC/143 Dr. Loveleen Maria
31-03-2024
Vaz
85.
GSVC/144 Dr. John Domnic
31-03-2019
86.
GSVC/146 Dr. Cunha Costa
31-03-2020
Maria Niceta
87.
GSVC/147 Dr. Erica Katia
31-03-2020
Carvalho
88.
GSVC/149 Dr. Coutinho Natasha
31-03-2020
Rachel
89.
GSVC/150 Dr. Kantak Pradnya
31-03-2020
Anand
90.
GSVC/152 Dr. Samir Kumar Das
31-03-2020
91.
GSVC/154 Dr. Aparajita
31-03-2020
Choudhary
92.
GSVC/155 Dr. Karlette Anne
31-03-2021
Fernandes
93.
GSVC/157 Dr. Ashay P. Kankonkar 31-03-2021
94.
GSVC/158 Dr. G. C. Gauthanker
31-03-2021
95.
GSVC/159 Dr. Bathini Harsh
31-03-2021
96.
GSVC/160 Dr. Lysandra Da Costa 31-03-2021
97.
GSVC/161 Dr. Soniya S. Chawan 31-03-2022
98.
GSVC/162 Dr. Ransley R. Caldeira 31-03-2022
99.
GSVC/163 Dr. Balaji U. Desai
31-03-2022
100.
GSVC/164 Dr. Prasad Ramesh
31-03-2022
Parab
101.
GSVC/165 Dr. Thomas Edison
31-03-2022
D’ Sa
102.
GSVC/166 Dr. Laximan Navsu
31-03-2022
Sawant
103.
GSVC/167 Dr. Carol Misquita
31-03-2022
104.
GSVC/168 Dr. Prafulla Kumar
31-03-2018
Naik
105.
GSVC/169 Dr. M. Karunakaran
31-03-2018
106.
GSVC/170 Dr. Keara Sesha
31-03-2018
Carvalho
107.
GSVC/171 Dr. Neysa Grace Diniz 31-03-2018
108.
GSVC/172 Dr. Jayram M. Desai
31-03-2018
109.
GSVC/173 Dr. Anjali Antonia
31-03-2018
Noronha
110.
GSVC/174 Dr. Pinheiro Anisha
31-03-2018
Carol
111.
GSVC/175 Dr. Ketan B. Chowgule 31-03-2018
112.
GSVC/176 Dr. Shubhada Krishna 31-03-2018
Chote
113.
GSVC/177 Dr. Seraphino da
31-03-2018
Cunha
114.
GSVC/178 Dr. Monteiro Raisa
31-03-2018
B. T.
115.
GSVC/179 Dr. Malory Maria
31-03-2018
Ferrao
116.
GSVC/180 Dr. Bandodkar
31-03-2019
Abhishek
117.
GSVC/181 Dr. Sherwin L. Dias
31-03-2019
118.
GSVC/182 Dr. Myron Fritz da
31-03-2019
Costa
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1921
119.
GSVC/183 Dr. Om Prakash
31-03-2019
120.
GSVC/184 Dr. Amanda G.
31-03-2020
Fernandes
121.
GSVC/185 Dr. Anjore Anand
31-03-2020
Sinai Kunde
122.
GSVC/186 Dr. Sequeira Daniella 31-03-2020
Stacy
123.
GSVC/187 Dr. Swathi Hareendran 31-03-2020
124.
GSVC/188 Dr. Radhakrishna Raghy 31-03-2020
125.
GSVC/190 Dr. Warren D’Mello
31-03-2020
126.
GSVC/191 Dr. M. V. Silpa
31-03-2021
127.
GSVC/192 Dr. Silveira Maria
31-03-2021
Sera
128.
GSVC/193 Dr. Deepika
31-03-2021
Prabhakar
129.
GSVC/194 Dr. Barros Gail
31-03-2021
Matilda
130.
GSVC/195 Dr. Govind
31-03-2021
131.
GSVC/196 Dr. Harne Ranjeet
31-03-2021
Dattatraya
132.
GSVC/200 Dr. Adrian Acacio
31-03-2021
Camara
133.
GSVC/201 Dr. M. V. Jithin
31-03-2021
134.
GSVC/202 Dr. Pardeshi A.
31-03-2021
Subhash
135.
GSVC/203 Dr. Jagruti Bathini
31-03-2021
136.
GSVC/204 Dr. R. Solomon
31-03-2021
Rajkumar
137.
GSVC/205 Dr. Susitha Rajkumar
31-03-2021
138.
GSVC/207 Dr. Nitin Joseph
31-03-2022
D’Souza
139.
GSVC/208 Dr. Surekha Dilip
31-03-2022
Lotlikar
140.
GSVC/209 Dr. Udharwar
31-03-2022
Sanjaykumar
141.
GSVC/210 Dr. Ellette Da Gama
31-03-2022
Fronia
142.
GSVC/211 Dr. Aswathy Nair
31-03-2022
143.
GSVC/212 Dr. Reina Maria
31-03-2022
Do Ceu Ilda
Barbosa Barreto
144.
GSVC/213 Dr. Gautami Yogiraj
31-03-2022
Naik
145.
GSVC/214 Dr. Rachel Jolsa
31-03-2022
Rowland Salema
146.
GSVC/215 Dr. Ashwini Shankar
31-03-2022
Prabhu
147.
GSVC/216 Dr. Gowri Yale
31-03-2022
148.
GSVC/217 Dr. Vishwanath
31-03-2022
S. Bhave
149.
GSVC/218 Dr. Malika U.
31-03-2022
Mayenkar
150.
GSVC/219 Dr. Pulpa Srinivas
31-03-2022
151.
GSVC/220 Dr. Madhura P. Naik
31-03-2022
152.
GSVC/221 Dr. Manthana Amin
31-03-2022
153.
GSVC/222 Dr. Ishan Anil
31-03-2022
Korgaonkar
154.
GSVC/223 Dr. Saurabh S.
31-03-2022
Morajkar
155.
GSVC/224 Dr. Gwenda Martina
31-03-2022
De Souza
156.
GSVC/225 Dr. Gavin Damian
31-03-2022
Furtado
157.
GSVC/226 Dr. Zinnia S. Marcelo 31-03-2022
It may please be noted that as per CHAPTER IV,
Section 30 of the ‘Indian Veterinary Council Act,
1984’ No person, other than a Registered Veterinary
Practitioner shall:-
1. Hold office as Veterinary Physician or Surgeon
or any other like title (by whatever name
called) in Government or in any Institution
maintained by a local or other authority.
2. Practice Veterinary Medicine in any State.
3. Be entitled to sign or authenticate a
Veterinary Health Certificate or any other
Certificate required by any law to be signed
or authenticated by a duly qualified
Veterinary Practitioner.
4. Be entitled to give evidence at any inquest
or in any court of law as an expert under
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
on any matter relating to Veterinary
Medicine.
Dated: 19-09-2017
Dr. Marwin Lopes,
Place: Panaji-Goa
Registrar,
Goa State Veterinary Council,
Tonca, Caranzalem.
V. No. A—1567/2017.
———uuu———
Department of Co-operation
Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
__
Order
No. 42/4/2002/TS/RCS/3399
In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Goa Co-operative
Societies Act, 2001, and in supersession of the
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1922
Government Order No. 42/4/2002/TS/RCS/886 dated
2nd June, 2017, the Government of Goa hereby
appoints Shri Sanjiv Gadkar to be the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, for the State of Goa for the
purpose of the said Act with effect from 05-10-2017
i.e. with effect from the date on which he took over
the charge of Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Panaji-Goa.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
W. V. R. Murthy, IAS, Secretary (Co-operation).
Panaji, 27th November, 2017.
________
Order
No. 9/22/2013/EST/RCS/3572
On the recommendations of Departmental
Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public
Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/12/11(1)/
/2014/955 dated 08-11-2017, Government is
pleased to lift the probation period and confirm
the following officials/officers in the post of
Co-operative Officer/Special Auditors in the
Establishment of Registrar of Co-operative
Societies on completing satisfactorily probation
period of 2 years.
Sr.
Name of the Officer/Officials
No.
1.
Shri P. S. Sawant.
2.
Shri H. S. Gaude (ST).
3.
Shri Suraj Ghaisas.
4.
Shri M. N. Kalangutkar (PD).
5.
Shri Pankaj Marathe.
6.
Smt. Ulka Bandekar.
7.
Shri Santosh P. Naik.
8.
Shri Rupesh L. Korde.
9.
Shri Harish S. Naik.
10.
Shri Sonu R. Gaunekar.
11.
Shri Sanjay S. Khajankar (ST).
12.
Shri R. B. N. Satardekar (PD).
13.
Smt. Smita M. Kankonkar (ST).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sanjiv M. Gadkar, Registrar & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (Co-operative Societies).
Panaji, 06th December, 2017.
Department of Home
Home—General Division
—
Notification
No. 1/97/2013-HD(G)/3603
In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (s)
of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) and in supersession of
the Government Notification No. 30/12/2014-Cyber
Crime/HD(G)/2491 dated 31-07-2014, published
in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 20 dated
14-08-2014, the Government of Goa hereby declares
the Cyber Crime Cell functioning from and located
at the Goa Institute of Management, Ribandar,
Tiswadi, Goa, to be a police station exclusively for
the purpose of investigation of the offences
punishable under the Information Technology Act,
2000 (Central Act 21 of 2000) and offences relating
to the intellectual property rights and other allied
laws for the time being in force, except the offences
which are required to be investigated exclusively
by the Economic Offence Cell as specified in the
Government Notification No. 1/97/2013-HD(G)/2627
dated 10-09-2017, published in Official Gazette,
Series I No. 25 dated 21-09-2017, with jurisdiction
over the entire State of Goa.
This Notification shall come into force with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Neetal P. Amonkar, Under Secretary (Home).
Porvorim, 05th December, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Industries
__
Order
No. 15/17/2006-IND
Government hereby constitutes a State Level
Screening Committee consisting of the following
members, under the Scheme of Fund for
Regeneration of Traditional Industries (SFURTI) for
production of food products under the Cluster the
Goa Agro and Food Processing.
The said Committee shall constitute of the
following:-
1. Director, Industries
— Chairman.
2. General Manager, NABARD/
— Member.
/Representative
3. Chief Executive Officer, KVIB
— Member.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1923
4. State Level Manager of Lead
— Member.
Bank of the State
5. Regional Officer of Coir Board — Member.
6. State Director, KVIC
— Member
Convener.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 06th December, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
__
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-I/823
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 08-11-2017 in reference
No. C-IT/09/2015 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.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 05th December, 2017.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. C-IT/09/2015
Shri Naguesh Gauns,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Kadamba Kamgar Union,
BG-10, Ground Floor,
Casa Immaculade,
Jose Falcao Road,
Near Panjim Church,
Panjim-Goa.
…
Workman/Party-I
V/s
The Managing Director,
M/s. Kadamba Transport
Corporation Ltd.,
Paraise-de-Goa Building,
Porvorim-Goa.
…
Employer/Party-II
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Agarwal.
Panaji, Dated: 08-11-2017.
AWARD
1. This award shall disposed off the Complaint
dated 30-03-2015 filed by the Workman u/s 33-A of
the I.D. Act, 1947.
2. It is the case of the Workman in short that he
joined the services of the Employer on 12-04-1988
as ‘Helper Mechanic’ in the pay scale of Rs. 750-
-940/-. He stated that his pay scale was fixed at
Rs. 2650-65-3300-70-4000 as per sixth pay
commission. He stated that he was granted Time
Bound Promotional Scale (TBPS) on 01-11-2000 in
the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590. He stated
that consequent upon the adoption of sixth pay
scales, his pay was fixed to Rs. 6380 + Rs. 1900 as
grade pay w.e.f. 01-01-2006 in revised pay band of
Rs. 5200-20200+Rs. 1900 as grade pay by order
dated 08-10-2010. He stated that the said order
was implemented from 01-01-2006. He stated that
the Workman was designated as Modified Assured
Career Progression Scheme (MACPS)–I when in fact
he was entitled for MACPS-II. He stated that on
recommendation of departmental promotional
committee, the Employer was pleased to promote
him to the post of ‘Asstt. Auto-Mechanic’ in the
pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 + Rs. 1900 (grade pay)
on probation for an initial period of six months by
order dated 19-09-2014. He stated that he was on
probation for a period of six months and was
granted second financial up-gradation in terms of
MACPS. He stated that he raised an industrial
dispute pertaining to refusal of employment which
is pending before the Labour Court II, Panaji, Goa
and which bears registration No. LC-II/IT/06/14.
He stated that he has also raised dispute in respect
of order dated 10-01-2011 imposing penalty of
withholding one annual increment for the year
2011.
3. He stated that during the pendency of the
reference before the Labour Court II, the Personnel
Officer issued an order dated 20-03-2015 by
which the probation order dated 19-09-2014 was
further extended to one year and six months i.e.
18-09-2016 on the same terms and conditions. He
stated that he was promoted to the post of Asstt.
Auto Mechanic by order dated 19-09-2014 and was
kept on probation for initial period of six months.
He stated that the initial probation period was not
extended till 20-03-2015 and the impugned order
dated 20-03-2015 was passed. He stated that the
Personnel Officer appeared before the Labour Court
II in the reference and therefore the pendency of
the reference was well within his knowledge. He
stated that he is 59 years and the probation period
is extended for a period of one year and six months
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1924
i.e. 18-09-2016 by the said impugned order there
by depriving the monetary benefits till retirement,
which shall have cascading effects for retiremental
benefits. He stated that the impugned order passed
by the Personnel Officer is illegal and without any
authority. He stated that the Personnel Officer has
no right of whatsoever nature to pass the impugned
order altering the service conditions. He submitted
that the impugned order is in violation of the
clauses of the Certified Standing Orders of the
Corporations. He submitted that in terms of the
said Certified Standing Orders, the period of
probation originally fixed may be extended by three
months, which shall be intimated to the employee.
He submitted that however, in the instant case, in
flagrant abuse in the process of law and during
the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour
Court II, the Personnel Officer has acted in abuse
of process of law and therefore liable for action for
violation of Section 33-A of the I.D. Act, 1947. The
Workman therefore prayed that the present
complaint be allowed and necessary proceedings
be initiated against the Personnel Officer for
alteration of service condition in violation of its
Certified Standing Orders pending before the
Labour Court II.
4. The Employer resisted the complaint by filing
its written statement on 19-06-2016 at Exb. 6. The
Employer submitted that the Workman has not only
suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble
Tribunal, but also has made misleading statements.
The Employer submitted that the complaint is liable
to be dismissed as there is no alterations of service
conditions as alleged by the Workman, that what
is referred for adjudication is not a complaint as
defined u/s 33-A of the I.D. Act and that since the
present complaint is filed u/s 33-A for the alleged
alteration of service conditions during the
pendency of industrial dispute bearing No. LC-II/
/IT/03/14 before the Hon’ble Labour Court II and
therefore this Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to
adjudicate the complaint as per provisions of
Section 33-A (b).
5. The Employer stated that it is a Government
Company registered under Section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956. The Employer stated that it
is a State transport undertaking under the purview
of the Motor Transport Act, 1988. The Employer
admitted that the Workman is working as ‘Assistant
Auto-Mechanic’. The Employer stated that on
recommendation of departmental promotional
committee, the Workman was promoted to the post
of ‘Assistant Auto-Mechanic’ on probation for initial
period of six months w.e.f. 19-09-2014. The Employer
stated that as per its recruitment rules, the period
of probation for the post of Assistant
Auto-Mechanic is two years and therefore the
probation period of the Workman was further
extended for the balance period of one year and
six months i.e. up to 18-09-2016 by its order date
20-03-2015 after the approval from its Managing
Director. The Employer submitted that its Personnel
Officer was duly authorized by the corporation to
issue the order dated 20-03-2015, thereby
extending the period of probation of the Workman.
The Employer denied that there is any violation of
Section 33-A of the I.D. Act or that during the
pendency of any such proceedings in respect of
the industrial disputes, it has altered the service
conditions of the Workman without taking any
permission as the dispute was pending before the
Labour Court II and prayed for dismissal of the
present complaint.
6. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on
12-07-2016 at Exb. 7. The Workman, 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.
7. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties’ hereinabove, the Hon’ble Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court framed the following
issues on 08-08-2016 at Exb. 9.
1. Whether the Party I proves that the Order
passed altering service conditions is in
violation of the principles of natural justice
and certified standing orders as applicable
to the Party II pending reference before the
Labour Court?
2. Whether the Party I proves that the Party II
has contravened the provisions of Section
33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
3. What Relief? What Award?
8. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
: In the affirmative.
(b) Issue No. 2
: In the affirmative.
(c) Issue No. 3
: As per final order.
REASONS
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv.
Shri A. Kundaikar, appearing for the Workman as
well as Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal, appearing for the
Employer.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1925
9. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar, appearing for the
Workman, during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that the Workman joined the services of
the Employer as ‘Helper Mechanic’ on 12-04-1988.
He submitted that on recommendation of
department promotional committee the Employer
Corporation was pleased to promote the Workman
as ‘Asstt. Auto-Mechanic’ in the pay band of
Rs. 5200-20200 + Rs. 1900/- (grade pay) on probation
for an initial period of six months by its order dated
19-09-2014. He submitted that the Workman had
raised an industrial dispute pertaining to refusal
of employment before this Hon’ble court and which
bears case No. LC-II/IT/06/14. He submitted that
by award dated 03-09-2015, this Hon’ble Court
answered the reference in his favour by holding
that the refusal of employment is illegal. He
submitted that the Workman has also raised a
dispute in respect of order dated 10-01-2011, by
which a penalty of withholding one annual
increment for the year 2011 was imposed. He
submitted that during the pendency of the
reference before the Labour Court II, the Personnel
Officer issued an order dated 20-03-2015 by which
his probation period was further extended for a
period of one year and six months i.e. till
18-09-2016 on the same terms and conditions. He
submitted that the age of the Workman is 59 years
and by the impugned order dated 20-03-2015
deprived the monetary benefits till retirement
which shall have cascading effect for retiremental
benefits. He submitted that the impugned order
dated 20-03-2015 extending the probation period
for another one and half year is not only illegal, but
also without any authority and also in violation of
the clauses of the Certified Standing Orders
applicable to him. He therefore prayed that the
complaint be allowed and necessary criminal
proceedings be initiated against the Personnel
Officer for alteration of service conditions in
violation of the Certified Standing Orders pending
the reference before this Hon’ble court.
10. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal,
representing the employer, during the course of
his oral arguments submitted that it is not in
dispute that the Workman was promoted to the
post of ‘Asstt. Auto Mechanic’ in the pay band of
Rs. 5200-20200+1900/- (Grade Pay) on probation
for an initial period of six months from the post of
‘Helper Mechanic’ by its order dated 19-09-2014.
He submitted that by its another order dated
20-03-2015, the Employer was pleased to extend
the probation period of the Workman for a period
of one year and six months i.e. till 18-09-2016 on
the same terms and conditions. He submitted that
as the order of the Employer dated 20-03-2015 is in
continuation of its earlier order dated 19-09-2014,
no prejudice of whatsoever nature would be caused
to the Workman. He therefore submitted that by
the impugned order dated 20-03-2015, no loss would
be caused to the Workman and as such the
complaint filed by the Workman be dismissed.
I have carefully perused the entire records of
the present case. I have also carefully considered
the oral arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocates
appearing for the respective parties and is of the
firm opinion as under.
11. Issue Nos. 1 and 2:
Undisputedly, the Workman joined the services
of the Employer as ‘Helper Mechanic’ on
12-04-1988. On recommendation of department
promotional committee, the Employer Corporation
was pleased to promote the Workman as ‘Asstt.
Auto-Mechanic’ in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200
+ Rs. 1900/- (grade pay) on probation for an initial
period of six months by its order dated 19-09-2014.
The Workman had raised an industrial dispute
pertaining to refusal of employment before this
Hon’ble court and which bears case No. LC-II/IT/
/06/14. By award dated 03-09-2015, this Hon’ble
Court answered the reference in his favour by
holding that the refusal of employment is illegal.
The Workman has also raised a dispute in respect
of order dated 10-01-2011, by which a penalty of
withholding one annual increment for the year 2011
was imposed. During the pendency of the reference
before the Labour Court II, the Personnel Officer
issued an order dated 20-03-2015, by which his
probation period was further extended for a period
of one year and six months i.e. till 18-09-2016 on
the same terms and conditions. Sub Clause ‘b’ of
Clause 3 of the Certified Standing Orders states
that “in case of a permanent Workman appointed as
a probationer in a new post, he may at any time
during the probationary period or at the end of the
probationary period may be reverted to the
permanent post. The period of probation originally
fixed may be extended by three months which shall
be intimated in writing to the employee. If the
employee shows average ability, he may be retained
if the manager so recommends. A probationer shall
be deemed to continue as such he is expressly
confirmed in writing by the manager”. The
impugned order dated 20-03-2015 extending the
probation period for another one and half year is
therefore in violation of Clause 3 (b) of the Certified
Standing Orders of the Employer and hence, it is
illegal and as such it is quashed and set aside. The
issue No. 1 and 2 is therefore answered in the
affirmative.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1926
In view of above, I proceed to pass the following
order.
ORDER
1. It is held that the order dated 20-03-2015
passed by the Personnel Officer of the
Employer by which the probation period of
the Workman was extended for further
period of one year and six months i.e.
up to 18-09-2016 on the same terms and
conditions, is illegal and unjustified and as
such it is quashed and set aside.
2. No order as to cost.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-I/824
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 24-10-2017 in reference
No. C-IT/30/2015 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.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 05th December, 2017.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. C-IT/30/2015
Shri Jesus A. Luis,
R/o. H. No. 157, Chinchal,
Margao-Goa.
…
Workman/Party-I.
V/s
The Managing Director,
M/s. Kadamba Transport
Corporation Ltd.,
Paraise-de-Goa Building,
Porvorim-Goa.
.…
Employer/Party-II.
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Agarwal.
Panaji, Dated: 24-10-2017.
AWARD
1. This award shall disposed off the complaint
dated 16-08-2015 filed by the Workman u/s 33-A of
the I. D. Act, 1947.
2. It is the case of the Workman in short that he
joined the services of the Employer as ‘Heavy
Vehicle driver’ on daily wages basis w.e.f.
01-04-1993. He stated that on completion of
successful service, he was appointed on probation
w.e.f. 01-04-1994. He stated that he was also made
eligible for the Time Bound Promotional Scale
(TBPS) scale on 01-09-2006, when in fact he was
eligible for same on and from 01-04-2006 i.e. on
completion of 12 years of service. He stated that on
account of disparity in pay fixation, he raised a
dispute pertaining to the disparity in his pay
fixation, which ended in failure. He stated that his
dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal,
which bears registration No. IT/03/14. He stated
that during the pendency of the said reference
before the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, the Employer
was pleased to transfer him from Margao depot to
Porvorim depot with immediate effect, vide its order
dated 26-02-2015. He stated that though he was
transferred as above, he was not relieved from
service on the date of transfer and therefore
continued to work at Margao depot due to
ambiguity in the transfer order. He stated that he
was relieved on 28-03-2015 after discharging his
duties at Margao depot. He stated that the
conductor was reverted back to his convenient
posting at Porvorim depot and that the driver
Shri Premanand Parab, who was transferred from
Vasco depot to Margao depot was brought back to
Vasco depot. He submitted that his transfer at
Porvorim depot amounts to victimization and
therefore filed the present complaint.
3. He stated that during the pendency of the
reference, the Employer was pleased to pass an
order dated 15-07-2015 on recommendation of the
departmental screening committee. He stated that
the workman, who has completed 20 years of
service, is granted second up-gradation in the pay
band of Rs. 5200-20200+Rs. 2800/- under the
Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP)
scheme. He stated that he was made eligible for
the said up-gradation and his basic pay was fixed
at Rs. 10700/- plus Rs. 2800/- grade pay w.e.f.
01-09-2014. He stated that the purported order is
not in consonance with the MACP scheme. He
stated that if he continues in the same cadre
without any promotion, than he shall be eligible
for the second up-gradation under MACP in PB-1
in the grade pay of Rs. 2800/- after completion of 18
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1927
years. He stated that in accordance with the MACP
scheme, he is eligible for one increment at the
time of release of second up-gradation and also
eligible for 3% increase of the total pay in pay band
and grade pay drawn before such up-gradation.
He stated that he has been deprived of such
benefits, resulting therein disparity in his pay
fixation. The Workman therefore prayed that the
complaint be allowed and further prayed for
passing an award holding that the order dated
15-07-2015 passed by the General Manager is illegal
and act of victimization and direct the Employer to
rectify the pay fixation in accordance with the
MACP scheme with consequential benefits and
reliefs attached to the post of driver on completion
of 20 years’ service. The Workman further prayed
to initiate proceedings against General Manager
for alterations of service conditions in violation of
its Certified Standing Orders pending reference.
4. The Employer resisted the complaint by filing
its written statement on 08-07-2016 at Exb. 4. The
Employer submitted that the Workman has not only
suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble
Tribunal but also has made misleading statements.
The Employer submitted that the complaint is liable
to be dismissed as there is no alterations of service
conditions as alleged by the Workman, that what
is referred for adjudication is not a complaint as
defined u/s 33-A of the I.D. Act, that since the
present complaint is filed u/s 33-A for the alleged
alteration of service conditions during the
pendency of industrial dispute bearing No. LC-II/
/IT/03/14 before the Hon’ble Labour Court II and
therefore this Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to
adjudicate the complaint as per provisions of
Section 33-A (b) and that the rule of Res Sub Judice
is applicable to the present complaint since the
Workman has already filed the complaint bearing
No. C-IT/10/15 pending before this Hon’ble Court
alleging same alteration of service conditions.
5. The Employer stated that it is a Government
Company registered under Section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956. The Employer stated that it
is a State transport undertaking under the purview
of the Motor Transport Act, 1988. The Employer
admitted that the Workman is working as ‘driver’.
The Employer stated that due to administrative
convenience, it was proposed by note dated
26-02-2015 that some of its employees, which
included drivers and conductors were required to
be transferred. The Employer stated that the said
proposal was approved by its Managing Director
and accordingly, the drivers and conductors
mentioned in the note were issued transfer orders.
The Employer admitted that one of such order is
dated 26-02-2015, by which Workman has been
transferred from its Margao depot to its Porvorim
depot as per its Certified Standing Orders being
incidental to its service conditions. The Employer
denied that the service conditions of the Workman
has been altered in gross abuse of process of law
and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
6. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for filing
re-joinder of the Workman. However, Ld. Adv.
Shri A. Kundaikar, appearing for the Workman
submitted that he does not wish to file any
re-joinder.
7. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties’ hereinabove, the Hon’ble Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court framed the following
issues on 18-08-2016 at Exb. 5.
1. Whether the Party I proves that his purported
transfer order dated 26-02-2015 is illegal,
malafide and an act of victimization and
unfair labour practice as he had filed
proceedings before Labour Court?
2. Whether the Party I proves that the
impugned order altering the service
conditions is in violation of Certified
Standing Orders as applicable to the
Party II?
3. Whether the Party I proves that the action
of the Party II is in violation of the provisions
of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947?
4. Whether the Party II proves that the
Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the complaint as industrial
dispute bearing No. LC-II/IT/03/14 is pending
before Labour Court II?
5. What Relief? What Award?
8. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for filing
affidavit in evidence of the Workman on
27-04-2017. However, Ld. Adv. Shri. A. Kundaikar,
appearing for the Workman orally seek time to file
the same. On 12-07-2017, Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar
appearing for the Workman was well as Ld. Adv.
Shri P. Agarwal, appearing for the Employer
remained present and jointly submitted that the
matter is likely to be settled amicably between the
parties and accordingly seek time to settle the
matter amicably. On 07-11-2017, Ld. Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar appearing for the Workman was well
as Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal, appearing for the
Employer remained present. Ld. Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar, representing the Workman orally
submitted that in view of re-transfer of the Workman
from Porvorim depot to Margao depot, he is
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1928
withdrawing the present complaint filed by the
Workman. Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal, representing
the Employer gave no objection for the same.
The Workman has filed the present complaint
alleging alteration of service condition. The
Workman shall therefore prove the said contention
by cogent evidence. However, if the Workman does
not wish to pursue his complaint filed by him, this
court has no other option rather than to dismiss
the same. Accordingly, the complaint of the
Workman is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
In view of above, I proceed to pass the following
order:
ORDER
1. The Workman is hereby allowed to
withdraw the present complaint filed
by him. Consequently, the present
complaint filed by the Workman stands
dismissed as withdrawn.
2. No Order as to cost.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-I/825
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 10-11-2017 in reference
No. IT/69/96 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.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 05th December, 2017.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/69/96
Shri Prabhakar Satardekar,
R/o. Sankhali-Goa.
…
Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. Kadamba Transport
Corporation Ltd.,
Panaji-Goa.
…
Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I represented by Shri K. Nadkarni.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri A.
Palekar.
Panaji, Dated: 10-11-2017.
AWARD
1. In Exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) the Government of
Goa, by Order dated 12-11-1996, bearing No. IRM/
/CON/SG/(45)/96/12045, referred the following
dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal
of Goa. Pending the aforesaid dispute for its
adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
-Labour Court, Panaji-Goa, the Government of Goa
transferred the present dispute to this Labour
Court-II, vide its Order dated 09-02-2016.
“(1) Whether the action of M/s. Kadamba
Transport Corporation Limited, Panaji, Goa,
in dismissing Shri Prabhakar B. Satardekar,
Driver, from the services with effect from
05-01-1996, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief, the workman is
entitled?”
2. Subsequently, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 08-04-2015,
bearing No. 28/49/2013-Lab/425, amended the
schedule of the said reference, by replacing the
expression “in dismissing Shri Prabhakar B.
Satardekar, Driver from the services with effect
from 05-01-1996”, the expression “in reverting
Shri Prabhakar B. Satardekar, Driver to the post of
Helper with effect from 02-04-1996”.
3. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II-IT/69/1996 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
27-02-1997 at Exb. 3. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that he was in the
employment of the Employer/Party-II (for short,
‘Employer’) as a ‘driver’ at its Margao depot. He
stated that while he was employed at Margao depot
on 17-02-1992, he was deployed on route
Margao-Bombay on a bus bearing No. GDZ-207
with his co-driver Shri Arun Mairekar and
Mr. Salit Mahale as conductor. He stated that while
driving on the said route, the bus met with an
accident at Pen (Maharashtra) against a stationary
truck causing damages to the bus and injuries to
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1929
the passengers including himself as well as the
conductor. He stated that thereafter he was served
with a charge-sheet dated 09-03-1992 by the
Employer and he was placed under suspension. He
stated that he replied to the said charge-sheet
dated 09-03-1992 by denying all the allegations
and charges made against him.
4. He stated that thereafter the Employer
instituted a domestic enquiry against him by
appointing one Mr. K. B. Surjuse as Enquiry Officer.
He stated that in the enquiry, the management
was represented by Mr. S. L. Ghate as Presenting
Officer. He stated that since in the middle of the
enquiry, Mr. K.B. Surjuse was repatriated to the
Government department, one Mr. A.S. Shirvoikar
was appointed as Enquiry Officer to continue the
half left enquiry. He stated that after completion of
the enquiry, he received a show-cause notice dated
05-10-1995 issued by the General Manager of the
Employer alongwith enquiry report dated
23-07-1995. He stated that by the said show-cause
notice, he was directed to show cause as to why
he should not be dismissed from the services of the
Employer Corporation in view of the proved
charges of misconduct levelled against him. He
stated that he filed a detail reply pointing out in
certainty the defects in the enquiry as well as
perversity of the Enquiry Officer in holding him as
guilty vide his reply dated 14-12-1995. He stated
that thereafter, ignoring his detailed reply given
by him to the show cause notice, he was dismissed
from service w.e.f. 05-01-1996 by order of dismissal
dated 05-01-1996, issued by the General Manager
of the Employer and a notice of termination was
sent to him by registered post A/D.
5. The Workman contended that the enquiry held
against him by the Enquiry Officer is illegal,
bad-in-law and in total violation of the principles
of natural justice. He submitted that the findings
given by the Enquiry Officer are perverse and
biased. He submitted that the Disciplinary
Authority while awarding the punishment of
dismissal to him, has failed and/or deliberately
neglected to find for himself that the Enquiry
Officer
has
committed
gross
error
of
non-application of mind and/or committed an error
of favouring the management by stressing the
evidence of the management to arrive at a
favourable findings for the management. He
submitted that the management witness (MW-3)
examined at the enquiry has refused to sign the
proceedings i.e. “his deposition as well as cross-
examination” and hence, the deposition of the said
witness has to be discarded, in view of the settled
law. He submitted that he was acquitted of all the
offences levelled against him by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class at Pen, Raigad vide its
Judgment and Order dated 29-11-1995 passed in
its criminal case No. 635 of 1992. He submitted
that the witness of the management, Shri S. L.
Ghate (MW-1) as well as Shri Anant Sawant
(MW-2) are not eye witnesses. Without prejudice
to his foregoing submissions, the Workman
submitted that the punishment of dismissal from
the services of the Corporation is totally
disproportionate and too harsh and it amounts to
economic death penalty to him.
6. He stated that he had filed a detailed appeal
to the Managing Director of the Employer
Corporation against the order of dismissal from
service bringing out to his notice all the facts and
figures including the judgment of the trial court.
He stated that the Managing Director of the
Employer disposed off the appeal filed by him by
passing an order by which the punishment of his
dismissal from service was reduced to his demotion
to the post of Helper from the basic pay scale of
Rs. 950/- to the pay scale of Rs. 750/-. He submitted
that the order of demotion issued to him is also
illegal as he was not promoted from the post of
helper to the driver, but he was directly recruited
as a Heavy Duty Driver. He stated that he is
presently unemployed. The Workman therefore
prayed that his dismissal from service w.e.f.
05-01-1996 be held as illegal and bad-in-law and
that he be directed to be reinstated back in service
along with continuity in service and full back
wages.
7. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on
07-04-1997 at Exb. 4. The Employer stated that it is
Government Company and also a State Transport
undertaking under the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. The Employer stated that it
provides transport services to the travelling public
within the State of Goa as well as to the
neighbouring states like Maharashtra and
Karnataka. The Employer stated that the Workman
was appointed as substitute driver w.e.f.
21-10-1986 on daily wages. The Employer stated
that the Workman was subsequently appointed on
probation w.e.f. 01-06-1987 for initial period of three
months, vide its order dated 15-05-1987. The
Employer stated that ever since his appointment
as driver in its employment, the Workman was
involved in various accidents/misconducts.
8. The Employer stated that the Workman, while
on duty on 26-11-1988, on a vehicle No. GDX-121
operating on Karwar-Margao-Vasco, met with an
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1930
accident at Sancoale. The Employer stated that
the bus dashed against a scooter bearing
No. DII-1324 as well as an electric pole, causing
damages to both the vehicles as well as an electric
pole. The Employer stated that the said accident
had taken place due to the negligence of the
Workman. The Employer stated that he was issued
a charge-sheet dated 26-04-1989 and finally warned
vide its warning letter dated 28-07-1989. The
Employer stated that the Workman, while on duty
on 28-05-1994, due to his negligence damaged two
rear right side tyres of the bus No. GDX 123 and
made great loss to them. The Employer stated that
he was therefore warned vide order dated
28-06-1994. The Employer stated that the Workman,
while on duty on 18-09-1994, while driving bus
No. GDX 120 on a route of Ponda to Belgaum, met
with an accident at Usgao near Pepsi Cola factory.
The Employer stated that the cost of damages
involved in this accident was Rs. 2405/- as per
valuation report. The Employer stated that the
Workman, while on duty on 27-04-1995, drove in a
rash and negligent manner its vehicle No. GDX-99
and as a result of which, the said vehicle got broke
down.
9. The Employer stated that the Workman, while
on duty on 17-02-1992, on its vehicle No. GDX-207
(Luxury) on a route of Margao to Bombay, dashed
its vehicle to a stationary truck No. MH–08/8087
from the back side near Caravi Village on
Nagothana-Pen, main road at 5.30 hours. The
Employer stated that the truck was parked at the
left side of the road to remove the puncture of its
front left tyre. The Employer stated that after the
impact of the bus, the truck was pushed forward
and as a result of which the truck cleaner was
killed on the spot and co-driver Shri Arjun Mairekar
and conduct Shri Salit Mahale were seriously
injured. The Employer stated that besides them,
two bus passengers sustained major injuries and
some passengers sustained minor injuries. The
Employer stated that the injured were taken to
Sion hospital, Bombay for treatment. The Employer
stated that the cost of the damage was estimated
to a tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Employer stated that
the Workman was suspended vide order dated
26-02-1992 pending departmental enquiry, which
was revoked vide its order dated 20-05-1992. The
Employer stated that the Workman was also issued
a charge-sheet in terms of Clause 28 of its certified
standing orders for the following charges of
misconduct:
ix : “Over speeding the vehicle.”
x : “Rash and negligence driving resulting
the death of or injury to persons or
damage to the property.”
xxix : “Damage or loss whether wilful or due
to irresponsible action or damages due
to negligence or carelessness to or/of
any property of the establishments.”
xxxiv : “Failure to observe safety rules or
instructions notified by the employer or
failure to use safety devices or
equipment or interference with any
safety devices or equipment installed
with establishment.”
xxxv : “Breach of any rules or instructions
given by superiors for the proper
functioning
of
safety
of
the
establishment.”
10. The Employer stated that the Workman
participated in the enquiry and he was represented
by Shri K. V. Nadkarni. The Employer stated that
after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report holding that all the charges
levelled against the Workman have been proved.
The Employer stated that thereafter, a show-cause
notice dated 05-10-1995 was issued to the Workman
as to show-cause why he should not be dismissed
from the service of the Employer. The Employer
stated that the Disciplinary Authority found that
the reply filed by the Workman was unsatisfactory.
The Employer stated that the Disciplinary
Authority, after considering the past unsatisfactory
performance and all other relevant factors felt that
he does not deserve a lenient view and therefore
the Workman was dismissed from service, vide order
dated 05-01-1996. The Employer stated that an
appeal filed by the Workman before its Managing
Director resulted into the demotion to the post of
helper from the punishment of dismissal from
service. The Employer stated that the Workman
has however, not joined to his duties as helper. The
Employer stated that the Workman, vide its letter
dated 20-01-1996 raised an industrial dispute before
the Conciliation Officer, Panaji, Goa, which ended
in failure. The Employer denied that the Workman
was on its permanent roll. The Employer stated
that the conductor expired on 25-05-1993 and many
claim petitions have been filed under the Motor
Vehicles Act demanding lakhs of rupees. The
Employer stated that in the event, if this Hon’ble
Tribunal holds that the enquiry is not fair and
proper, then they may be permitted to lead evidence
in this case. The Employer denied the overall case
as pleaded by the Workman and prayed for
dismissal of the present claim of the Workman.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1931
11. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder
on 05-05-1997 at Exb. 5. The Workman, by way of
his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all his
submissions, averments and statements made in
his claim Statement to be true and correct and
denies all the statements, averments and
submissions made by the Employer in its Written
Statement, which are contrary to his Statement
and averments made in his Claim Statement. He
stated that so called accident dated 26-11-1988
was not caused due to any fault or negligence on
his part. He stated that he has given a detailed
reply to the charge-sheet dated 26-04-1989, denying
the allegations made against him. However, no
enquiry was conducted to prove his guilt.
12. Based on the pleadings filed by both the
parties, the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panaji, framed the
following issues on 05-10-1998 at Exb. 9.
1. Whether the Party I proves that the domestic
enquiry held against him is not fair, proper
and impartial?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct levelled
against the Party I are proved to the
satisfaction of the Tribunal by acceptable
evidence?
3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
the action of the Employer/Party II in
reverting him from driver to the post of
helper with effect from 02-04-1996 is illegal
and unjustified?
4. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to
any relief?
5. What Award?
13. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
a) Issue No. 1
:
In the negative.
b) Issue No. 2
:
In the affirmative.
c) Issue No. 3
:
In the affirmative.
d) Issue Nos. 4 & 5 :
As per final order.
REASONS:
14. Issue Nos. 1 and 2:
While deciding the issue No. 1, I have discussed
and come to the conclusion that a fair and proper
enquiry has been conducted in accordance with
the principles of natural justice r/w Certified
Standing Orders of the Employer. Similarly, while
deciding the issue No. 2, I have discussed and
come to the conclusion that all the charges of
misconduct have been proved to the satisfaction
of this court by acceptable evidence. The issue
No. 1 is answered in the negative and issue No. 2
is answered in the affirmative.
15. Issue No. 3:
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Rep.
Shri K. V. Nadkarny, appearing for the Workman as
well as Ld. Adv. Shri V. Palekar, appearing for the
Employer.
Ld. Rep. Shri K.V. Nadkarny, representing the
Workman during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that the Workman was issued a charge-
-sheet dated 09-03-1992 setting forth certain
charges of misconduct in accordance with its
Certified Standing Orders. He submitted that the
said charge-sheet was issued to the Workman as
the bus was involved in an accident at Pen
(Maharashtra) resulting in damages to the bus
driven by the Workman and also injuries to the
passengers including serious injuries to the
conductor. He submitted that the Ld. Enquiry
Officer conducted an enquiry and the Workman
was held guilty of the charges of misconduct as
stated in charge-sheet dated 09-03-1992. He
submitted that thereafter, the Workman was issued
the dismissal order dated 05-01-1996 by which his
services has been terminated. He submitted that
the Workman filed an appeal against the dismissal
order dated 05-01-1996 before the Managing
Director of the Employer Corporation, vide his
appeal memo dated 19-02-1996. He submitted that
the Managing Director of the Employer after
hearing both the parties passed an order dated
02-04-1996 by which, he has been reverted to the
post of helper. He submitted that the Workman
challenged the said order of the Managing Director
of the Employer Corporation in the present
reference. He submitted that he was initially
appointed as ‘Heavy Vehicle Driver’. He submitted
that the action of the Managing Director of the
Employer Corporation in reverting him from the
post of ‘Heavy Vehicle Driver’ in the higher grade
to the post of helper in the lower pay scale is
illegal and bad-in-law. In support of his oral
contention, Ld. Rep. Shri K. V. Nadkarny relied upon
a judgment in the case of Vasu D. Mesta v/s.
M/s. Goa Shipyard Ltd. and Anr., passed in writ
petition No. 232 of 1996 of Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay at Panaji bench.
16. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri V. Palekar,
representing the Employer fairly acceded to the
law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay at Panaji bench in its case of Vasu Mesta
(supra).
I have carefully perused the entire records of
the present case. I have also carefully gone through
the oral submissions advanced by the Ld. Rep.
Shri K.V. Nadkarny appearing for the Workman.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1932
17. Undisputedly, the Workman under reference
was appointed as substitute driver w.e.f.
21-10-1986 on daily wage basis. His appointment
was extended from time to time. He was appointed
on probation w.e.f. 01-06-1987 for initial period of
three months vide order of the Employer dated
15-05-1987. While the Workman was employed at
Margao depot of the Employer Corporation, he was
sent on route of Margao-Bombay on bus No. GDZ-207
with his co-driver, Shri Arun Majrekar and
Mr. Salil Mahale as conductor. The said bus was
involved in an accident at Pen (Maharashtra)
resulting in the bus driven by the workman
dashing against a stationary truck causing
damages to the bus and injuries to the passengers
including serious injuries to the conductor. The
Workman was therefore served with a charge-sheet
by charge-sheet dated 09-03-1992 for his aforesaid
acts of misconduct. The Ld. Enquiry Officer after
conducting an enquiry, submitted his findings to
the management. Thereafter, the Workman was
issued a show-cause notice dated 05-10-1995 to
show cause as to why he should not be dismissed
from the services of the Corporation. The Workman
under reference was thereafter issued a dismissal
order dated 05-01-1996, dismissing him from
services of the Employer w.e.f. 05-01-1996.
Aggrieved by the dismissal order of the Employer,
the Workman filed an appeal before the Managing
Director of the Employer. The Managing Director of
the Employer Corporation vide its order dated
02-04-1996, disposed off the said appeal filed by
the Workman by demoting him to the post of
‘Helper’ w.e.f. 02-04-1996 from the post of ‘Heavy
Vehicle Driver’. The Workman challenged the said
order of the Managing Director dated 02-04-1996
by raising an industrial dispute in the present
reference.
18. In the case of Vasu D. Mesta (supra), the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Panaji bench has
held that “it is an elementary principle of service
law, particularly in the sphere of imposition of penalty
after enquiry that a person cannot be reverted to a
lower post which he had not been working in or
from which he has been never been promoted from.
A person can be reverted to a lower post only if the
post to which he is reverted is a feeder category of
the post in which he is presently working. This has
been repeatedly stated by the Supreme Court as well
as several High Courts……”
19. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay at Panaji bench binds a precedent
upon me. Applying the law laid down by the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in its aforesaid case,
in the case in hand, the Workman under reference
joined the services of the Employer as ‘Heavy
Vehicle Driver’ w.e.f. 01-06-1987. The said post of
‘Heavy Vehicle Driver’ is not a feeder cadre post.
Hence, reverting the Workman under reference to
the post of ‘Helper’ w.e.f. 02-04-1996 from the post
of ‘Heavy Vehicle Driver’ is illegal and unjustified.
It is therefore held that the Workman successfully
proved that the action of the Employer in reverting
him from the post of ‘Heavy Vehicle Driver’ to the
post of ‘Helper’ is illegal and unjustified. The issue
No. 3 is therefore answered in the affirmative.
20. Issue No. 4:
While deciding the issue No. 3, herein above, I
have discussed and come to the conclusion that
the action of the Employer in reverting him from
the post of ‘Heavy Vehicle Driver’ to the post of
‘Helper’ is illegal and unjustified. The issue No. 4
is therefore answered in the affirmative.
21. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase
v/s. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.
ED.) and Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if the order of
termination is void ab initio, the Workman is
entitled to full back wages. The relevant para of
the decision is extracted hereunder:
“22. 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
reinstatement of such an employee, which is
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
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1933
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.”
22.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court is well established. In the case in hand,
the Workman has pleaded and also stated on oath
that he is unemployed. The Workman has however,
did not plead and also stated on oath as to what
efforts he has taken to gain an alternate
employment. The Workman also did not disclose
whether he is having any other source of income.
The Workman under reference is a driver by
profession. He must have been in the alternative
employment. The Employer Corporation is a State
Transport Undertaking. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it will be fair
and proper, if the Workman be reinstated and
reverted back to his original post of ‘Heavy Vehicle
Driver’ alongwith continuity in service and 30% of
back wages with consequential benefits thereof.
In view of above, I proceed to pass the following
order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of M/s. Kadamba
Transport Corporation Limited, Panaji, Goa,
in reverting Shri Prabhakar B. Satardekar,
Driver to the post of Helper with effect from
02-04-1996, is illegal and unjustified.
2. It is ordered that the Workman is entitled to
reinstatement and reverted back to his
original post of ‘Heavy Vehicle Driver’ along
with continuity in service and 30% of back
wages with consequential benefits thereof.
3. No order as to cost.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 6/18/2016-PER/3707
Read: 1) Notification No. 3/1/2012-PER dated
16-08-2016 published in Official Gazette,
Series I No. 20 dated 18-08-2016.
2) Notification No. 6/9/2008-PER (Part-I)
dated 01-06-2016.
3) Notification No. 6/18/2016-PER dated
09-08-2017.
4) Notification No. 6/18/2016-PER/2796
dated 18-09-2017.
5) Order No. 6/18/2016-PER/2795 dated
18-09-2017.
6) Letter No. GIPARD/PA/JSO/004/A/2017-
-18/1502 dated 09-10-2017.
Pursuant to the Departmental examination of
Refresher Training Programme held from 20th to
23rd September, 2017 conducted by the Goa
Institute of the Public Administration and Rural
Development in accordance with the notification
read in preamble at Sr. Nos. 1 to 5 above and
pursuant to the results declared by the Goa
Institute of the Public Administration and Rural
Development vide its letter dated 09-10-2017 read
in preamble at Sr. No. 6, the following 18 Junior
Scale Officers amongst others who appeared in the
said examination have been declared as “PASSED”:-
1. Shri Santosh S. Kundaikar.
2. Shri Bhushan Keshav Savoikar.
3. Smt. Sheru Appa Shirodkar.
4. Smt. Varsha S. Naik.
5. Smt. Anju S. Kerkar.
6. Shri Gourish Shankar Kurtikar.
7. Shri Brijesh D. Manerkar.
8. Smt. Neetal P. Amonkar.
9. Shri Arvind B. Khutkar.
10. Shri Pipi T. Murgaonkar.
11. Shri Sagun R. Velip.
12. Smt. Sushma D. Kamat.
13. Smt. Maria S. D’Souza.
14. Shri Gaurish J. Shankhwalkar.
15. Shri Mahadev J. Araundekar.
16. Shri Harish N. Adconkar.
17. Smt. Sarita Sadashiv Marathe alias Gadgil.
18. Smt. Sangeeta S. Rawool alias Smt. Sangeeta
Porob.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1934
This is issued in terms of the results of the above
officers communicated by the Goa Institute of the
Public Administration and Rural Development vide
its letter dated 09-10-2017 read in preamble at
Sr. No. 6.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Yetindra M. Maralkar, Additional Secretary
(Personnel).
Porvorim, 7th December, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 2/19/2011-II/PHD/1542
Government is pleased to accept the resignation
tendered vide letter dated 04-09-2017 by Dr. Rohit
Chodankar, Assistant Professor in Orthopaedics,
Goa Medical College, and he stands relieved from
the said post of Assistant Professor in
Orthopaedics, Goa Medical College w.e.f. 04-12-2017
(f.n.) on expiry of 03 months notice period.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health)/link.
Porvorim, 5th December, 2017.
________
Order
No. 2/8/2014-II/PHD/1546
Government is pleased to count the past service
rendered by Dr. Roma Varik, Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Goa Medical
College, Bambolim-Goa, rendered as Assistant
Professor in the Department of Paediatric Surgery,
Goa Medical College w.e.f. 07-06-2014 to 10-11-2016
under New Pension Scheme and also for pay
protection of basic pay of Rs. 20,300/-, subject to
the conditions that the terminal benefits, if any,
obtained by her shall be deposited in the
Government treasury alongwith interest.
This issues with the concurrence of the
Finance (Rev. & Cont.) Department vide their U.O.
No. 1496480/F dated 27-11-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health)/link.
Porvorim, 6th December, 2017.
Certificate
No. 4/1/2003-II/PHD/Vol.I/1557
Read: Government Order No. 4/1/2003-II/PHD/Vol. I
dated 05-09-2017.
Certified that the Character and Antecedents of
Dr. Clarista Meleena Quadros, Assistant Lecturer,
Department of Anatomy in Goa Medical College
appointed vide above referred Order has been
verified by the Addl. District Magistrate, South Goa
District, Margao and nothing adverse has come to
the notice of the Government.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health)/link.
Porvorim, 8th December, 2017.
———u———
Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration
__
Order
No. 147/DFDA/RTI-INF-ACT/Vol.III/2017-18/5656
In supersession to earlier order No. 147/DFDA/
/RTI-INF-ACT/2010-11/227 dated 07-04-2010 in
pursuance of Clause 5 of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”),
the following officers are hereby appointed for the
Directorate of Food & Drugs Administration, as
Public Information Officer and Assistant Public
Information Officer to deal with the applications
received from the public under the said Act.
Sr.
Names & designation
Roles/Responsibilites
No.
of the officers
1
2
3
1. Shri Ratnakumar
Public Information Officer
Y. Arlekar,
All matters related to the
Assistant Drugs
Department.
Controller
2. Smt. Medha A.
Assistant Public Information
Dessai, Assistant
Officer
Drugs Controller
Matters related to the Depart-
ment accept those related
to Food Cell & Enforcement
of Food Safety & Standards
Act.
3. Shri Richard Luis
Assistant Public Information
Noronha, Designa- Officer
ted Officer
Matters related to the Food
Cell & Enforcement of Food
Safety & Standards Act.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1935
The above referred Officers shall exercise and
perform the powers/function laid down under the
RTI Act, 2005 with immediate effect.
Jyoti J. Sardesai, Director (Food & Drugs Admn.).
Bambolim, 5th December, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Science, Technology &
Environment
__
Notification
No. 31-9-2017/STE-DIR/Part-I/717
Read:1) Notification No. 5/20/87/STE/P-IV/635
dated 03-09-2012.
2) Notification No. 188-10-2016/STE-DIR/1864
dated 09-03-2016.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
4 and sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
(6 of 1974), the Government of Goa in supersession
of notification read at (2) above hereby makes the
following amendments in its Notification bearing
No. 5/20/87/STE/P-IV/635 dated the 3rd September,
2012, namely:-
In the said notification:-
(i) for serial number 1 and the entries relating
thereto, the following serial number and
entries shall be substituted, namely:-
“1. Secretary (Environment)
… Chairperson”
Government of Goa,
Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Parag M. Nagarcenkar, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Environment).
Saligao, 8th December, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Transport
Directorate of Transport
__
Order
No. 5/2/93-Tpt/P.F./2017/5698
The following Assistant Directors of Transport (A.D.Ts) are hereby transferred on administrative grounds
and in public interest:-
Sr.
Name of the Assistant
Present Posting
Proposed Posting
No.
Director of Transport
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Nandakishor Arolkar
A.D.T., Pernem
A.D.T., Enf., North, Panaji.
2.
Shri Kishor Lotlikar
A.D.T., Ponda
A.D.T., Canacona.
3.
Shri Balchandra A. Sawant
A.D.T., North, Panaji
A.D.T., Ponda.
4.
Shri Sandeep B. Dessai
A.D.T., Enf., North, Panaji
A.D.T., Quepem.
5.
Shri Meghashyam Pilankar
A.D.T. (H.Q.), Head Office, Panaji
A.D.T., Pernem.
6.
Shri Rajesh @
A.D.T., Quepem
A.D.T. (H.Q.), Head Office,
Ramkrishna B. Naik
Panaji.
7.
Shri Madan S. Fatarpekar
A.D.T., Dharbandora
A.D.T., North, Panaji.
8.
Shri Vinod R. Arlekar
A.D.T., Canacona
A.D.T., Dharbandora.
The above Officers are hereby directed to join the new places of posting on 01-01-2018 and complete
handing over/taking over formalities accordingly. They shall not avail joining period or any type of leave
till they assume charge at their new place of posting.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Nikhil Desai, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Tpt.).
Panaji, 11th December, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1936
Corrigendum
No. D.Tpt/5/25/89-TPT/PF/2017/5699
Refer Notification No. D.Tpt/25/89-TPT/PF/2017/
/5774 dated NIL/10/2017.
(II) (F) Regional Transport Authority for Vasco.
(II) The name of the Member, RTA, Vasco shall be
read as “Shri Damodar Sakharam Kaskar” instead
of “Shri Digambar Sakharam Kaskar”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nikhil Desai, Director & ex officio Additional
Secretary (Transport).
Panaji, 11th December, 2017.
———uuu———
Office of the Minister for Urban
Development
__
Standing Order
No. MIN.U.D./Standing order/2017/01
In pursuance of Rule 17 of the Rules of Business
of the Government of Goa, 1991, I, Shri Francisco
C.J.A. de Pinto e Souza, Minister for Urban
Development, Government of Goa, hereby direct
that the Secretary, Urban Development to the
Government of Goa shall hear and dispose of the
appeals filed under Section 358(3) of The City of
Panaji Corporation Act, 2002 (Act No. 1 of 2003)
and Revisions filed under Section 303 of the
Municipalites Act, 1968 (Act No. 7 of 1969).
This Standing Order shall come into force with
immediate effect.
Francisco C.J.A. de Pinto e Souza, Hon’ble
Minister for Urban Development.
Porvorim, 28th November, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Water Resources
Office of the Chief Engineer
__
Order
No. 3/25-4/87/WR/1077
Read: Order No. 3/25-4/87/WR/744 dated
12-12-2005.
Government is pleased to extend the ad hoc
promotion of Shri Anant G. Bhagwat, Ad hoc
Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works (Civil) in
Water Resources Department promoted on ad hoc
basis vide Order referred above, for a further period
with effect from 01-10-2017 to 31-12-2017.
This is issued with the approval of Goa Public
Service Commission conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/27(2)/2016/1077 dated 23-11-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
S. T. Nadkarni, Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (WR).
Porvorim, 6th December, 2017.
________
Order
No. 3/25-5/87/WR/1088
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide Confidential
letter No. COM/II/11/27(3)/2016/922 dated
24-10-2017, Government is pleased to order the
promotion of the following Junior Engineer to the
post of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Surveyor of
Works (Civil) in Water Resources Department on
regular basis in the Pay Matrix Level No. 7, and
post him against the place indicated in Column
No. 4:-
Sr.
Name of
Present designation
Designation and
No. promotee
and place of
place of posting
posting
on promotion
1. Shri Balikai Junior Engineer,
Assistant
S. A.
O/o Assistant
Engineer,
Engineer, Sub-Div.
O/o Sub-Div-II,
IV, Works Div. XIV, Works Div. XII,
WRD,Quepem-Goa WRD, Margao
against the
existing
vacancy of Shri
Chandrakant
Dhamsadekar
occurred on
30-04-2016.
The Officer at Serial No. 1 shall be on probation
for a period of two years as specified in Column
No. 9 of the Recruitment Rules notified in the
Official Gazette, Extraordinary, Series I No. 28 dated
11-10-2001.
This is issued vide Government approval
No. 8940/F dated 31-10-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
S. T. Nadkarni, Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (WR).
Porvorim, 11th December, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1937
Order
No. 4-5-06/CE-WR/Adm.II/1083
Government approval is hereby/conveyed for re-distribution of Works Divisions amongst the Circle
Offices of Water Resources Department along with present works, sanctioned strength (Post filled
and post vacant, on regular and workcharged establishment, Sub-Division Offices, Machinery etc. is
as below:
Sr.
Name of
Head
Original Works
New Works Division
Remarks
No.
the Circle
quarters
Divisions under the
under the Circle
Circle Office
Office
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
1.
Circle
Porvorim
Works Division I,
Works Division I,
Office I
Porvorim
Porvorim
Works Division II,
Works Division II,
Rawanfond, Margao
Rawanfond, Margao
Works Division VI,
Works Division VI,
Bicholim
Bicholim
Works Division XI,
Works Division XIII,
Gogal, Margao
Gogal, Margao-Goa
Works Division XII,
The Soil Conservation
Gogal, Margao
Division of Directorate
of Agriculture, Panaji is
Works Division XIII,
also attached to Circle I
Gogal, Margao
The Soil Conservation
Division of Directorate of
Agriculture, Panaji is
also attached to
Circle I
2.
Circle
Margao
Works Division III,
Works Division
Office V
Ponda
XI and Works
Division XII are
attached from
Circle I.
The above distribution of Works Division Offices does not involve physical shifting of any
offices, concerned, but only re-distribution of Works Division Offices among Circle Offices for the
purpose of distribution of Minor Irrigation workload and better execution of works, with immediate
effect.
This is issued with the approval of Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
S. T. Nadkarni, Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary (W.R.).
Porvorim, 7th December, 2017.
Works Division
XI and Works
Division XII are
detached from
Circle I and
attached to
Circle V.
Works Division III,
Ponda
Works Division XI,
Gogal, Margao
Works Division XII,
Gogal, Margao
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
14TH DECEMBER, 2017
1938
Department of Women & Child
Development
Directorate of Women & Child Development
__
Order
No. 2-103(69)-2014/DWCD/6015
The Child Welfare Committee North Goa District
was constituted Vide Notification No. 2-103(69)-
-2014/DW&CD/10524 dated 09-12-2014 as per the
provisions of Section 91 the Goa Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2013 and
Section 29 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
The tenure of the existing Child Welfare
Committees North Goa District will get expired
on 10-12-2017.
The Child Welfare Committee South Goa to
assume responsibilities of Child Welfare Committee
North as under Section 36 (7) of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 till
the constitution of the new Child Welfare
Committee North Goa.
Dipak Dessai, Director (Women & Child
Development).
Panaji, 8th December, 2017.
________
Corrigendum
No. 2-103(69)-2014/DWCD/6061
Ref.: Order No. 2-103(69)-2014/DWCD/6015 dated
08-12-2017.
In partial modification to the order dated
08-12-2017 cited above, the last line of first para of
the order mentioned above may be corrected and
read as under:-
“After the word expired on “10-12-2017”, may
be read as “18-12-2017”.
This comes into force with immediate effect.
Dipak Dessai, Director (Women & Child
Development).
Panaji, 11th December, 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. 20.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–334/200–12/2017.