Sixteen engineers of the Public Works Depart ment (PWD) have moved the Bombay High Court at Goa, alleging abuse of dis cretion by the State gov ernment in repeatedly ex tending the service of PWD Principal Chief Engineer Uttam Parsekar. The petition, filed by exec utive engineer Abhay Prab hu Khadpe along with 15 others, challenges the grant of three successive service extensions that have allowed Parsekar to continue in of fice for nearly three years beyond his retirement. The petitioners contend that the most recent extension, granted up to January 31, 2026, cannot be justified as an exceptional measure and instead reflects a pattern of arbitrary decision-making. The engineers argue that the extensions directly vi olate a binding High Court judgment dated October 14, 2025, which had categor ically directed the State to avoid extending the tenure of retiring officers and to induct younger officers by amending recruitment rules or eligibility criteria where necessary.
Terming the government’s actions a deliberate disre gard of judicial directions, the petitioners have sought a court order directing the State government, the Depart ment of Personnel and the Goa Public Service Commission (GPSC) to strictly implement the October ruling. They have also urged the court to mandate the convening of the De partmental Promotion Committee (DPC) within a fixed timeframe to fill long-pending vacancies on a regular ba sis, along with a one-time relaxation of qualifying service norms to facilitate promotions. Pending final adjudication, the engineers have sought interim relief restraining the authorities from issuing any further extension orders in the PWD. While the PWD’s sanctioned strength comprises one Principal Chief Engineer, five Chief Engineers, 13 Superin tending Engineers and 46 Executive Engineers, the major ity of these posts are currently manned on an ad hoc basis. Except for the Principal Chief Engineer, four Chief Engi neers, nine Superintending Engineers and 44 Executive En gineers are holding charge without regular appointments, while several senior posts remain vacant. The petitioners have contended that continued reliance on ad hoc arrangements, coupled with repeated extensions at the top, has stalled career progression and undermined governance within the department. The High Court has issued notices to the State govern ment, the Department of Personnel and the GPSC, directing them to file their responses. The matter is scheduled for further hearing in the first week of February.
