In a significant ruling upholding the financial rights of retired public servants, the Goa Human Rights Commission (GHRC) declared the recovery of ₹2,60,769 from the gratuity of a retired Police Sub Inspector (PSI) illegal and impermissible under the law.
The order was passed in Proceeding No. 30/2026 on September 3, 2026, following a complaint filed by former PSI Chandrahas Gopal Mhalsekar against the Director General of Police (DGP), Panaji.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Background of the Case
- Service History: Mhalsekar served as a Class-III employee in the police department for over 40 years, joining as a police constable on September 4, 1982, and retiring on May 31, 2023.
- Gratuity Deduction: Following his retirement, the department deducted ₹2,60,769 from his gratuity dues on November 6, 2023, claiming it as an overpayment of excess salary.
- Forced Undertaking: The complainant, represented by Advocate Omkar Kulkarni, revealed that the department coerced him into signing an undertaking on May 26, 2023—just five days before his retirement. He was warned that his pension processing would be stalled if he did not consent.
- Respondent’s Stand: Advocate Harsha Naik, representing the DGP, argued that the deduction was valid since the complainant had voluntarily requested the excess salary adjustment from his gratuity.
Key Rulings & Legal Precedents
The Commission rejected the respondent’s defense, emphasizing that undertakings obtained under duress at the eve of retirement cannot be used as a mechanical tool to strip retirees of their hard-earned benefits.
| Legal Precedent / Issue | Key Principles Applied by GHRC |
| State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) | Recoveries from retired employees or Class-III/IV staff are legally impermissible where no fraud or misrepresentation occurred. |
| Undertakings at Retirement | Forced undertakings signed under the pressure of pending pension processing are non-enforceable in equity. |
| Principles of Natural Justice | Deductions made without prior notice, calculation breakdowns, or proper hearings violate fundamental fairness. |
| Date of Birth Dispute | The complainant withdrew his prayer regarding the correction of his birth date (shown as May 24, 1963, in service records). |
Commission Verdict
The Commission concluded that retrial benefits such as gratuity and pension are essential for securing the dignity, medical care, and daily survival of senior citizens. Because Mhalsekar committed no fraud or misrepresentation during his 40-year tenure, deducting funds post-retirement violated binding Supreme Court guidelines and principles of natural justice.
