NT Reporter
Panaji
In a significant ruling that underscores the rights of retired government employees, the Goa Human Rights Commission (GHRC) has directed the Health Department to refund Rs 30.55 lakh wrongfully deducted from the gratuity and pension dues of a retired senior gynaecologist, Dr Minaxi Panandikar, who served for over two decades.
The commission found that the recovery — carried out without affording
Dr Panandikar any opportunity of hearing — amounted to a violation of her human rights. The commission, presided over by acting chairperson Desmond D’Costa and member Pramod V Kamat, has given the Secretary (Health) and the Director of Directorate of Health Services 60 days to comply, failing which the refund amount will attract a simple interest of six per cent per annum from March 5, 2026.
Dr Panandikar, a resident of Gogol, Margao, had joined as a junior gynaecologist on June 29, 2001, and retired as a senior gynaecologist from South Goa District Hospital on November 21, 2022 — nearly after 21 years of dedicated service. It was only after her retirement that she received a letter dated February 1, 2024 from the Deputy Directorate of Accounts, informing her of an alleged overpayment of Rs 30,55,975, arising from an error in pay calculation under the dynamic assured career progression (DACP) scheme. Of this, Rs 20 lakh was recovered from her gratuity and Rs 10,55,975 from her pension arrears.
Dr Panandikar submitted to the commission that she was compelled to consent to the recovery despite there being no
fault on her part.
The commission was unequivocal in noting that the excess payment was not the result of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the complainant. Relying on certain Supreme Court judgments, the GHRC held that such recoveries are impermissible where the overpayment stems purely from an administrative or computational error by
the employer.
During the proceedings, the respondents, including the Secretary (Health) and the Director of Health Services, argued through counsel that the doctor had provided a consent letter for the recovery and was therefore not entitled to relief. However, the commission rejected this stance, noting that the complainant was not offered an opportunity for a hearing before the recovery order was issued and the mere fact of consent does not legalise a recovery that is otherwise impermissible in law.
Critically, the GHRC noted that the Finance Department had been sitting on the complainant’s waiver application since May 27, 2024 — for nearly 18 months — without any decision, compounding the injustice meted out to a retired medical professional.
The commission directed both respondents to forward their compliance report on or before May 5, 2026, in terms of Section 18(e) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
