Gujarat High Court
Parul Amitkumar Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 14 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12554/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12554 of 2020
==========================================================
PARUL AMITKUMAR SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. NISARG D SHAH(7299) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HENIL SHAH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 14/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers as under :
a) That the impugned order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the respondents is neither legal nor proper and requires to be quashed and set aside.
b) That the respondents have erred in interpreting the GR dated 11.05.2001, the said resolution applies to the officers who were retired between 14.11.1991 Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:57:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12554/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined to 16.10.1994. The GR dated 11.05.2001 states that the Medical Officers will not be given concurrent benefits of senior scale of Tiku Pay Commission simultaneously. Admittedly the said is not case of the petitioner.
c) That the respondents have erred in not appreciating that the resolution dated 11.05.2001 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as GR dated 17.10.1994 under which, the benefits of the Tiku Pay Commission were extended does not curtail the said benefits upon voluntary retirement. The GR dated 17.10.1994 under which, the benefits of Tiku Pay Commission were extended to the petitioner relates to the Promotion and not Voluntary Retirement.
d) That the orders dated 06.07.2009 and 08.03.2013, under which, the benefits of Tiku Pay Commission were granted to petitioner does not state such condition.
e) That the respondents have erred in misinterpreting the resolution dated 11.05.2001 as the last paragraph of the said resolution clearly states Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:57:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12554/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined that it applies to the retired deceased or the officers who were voluntary resigned between the periods 14.11.1991 to 16.10.1994, therefore, the same does not apply to all.
f) That the respondents have erred in reading the relevant clause of the resolution dated 11.05.2001 in isolation. If the same is read in contest, it reveals that the condition of the voluntary retirement will be applicable for the officers who have retired between the periods 14.11.1991 to 16.10.1994.
g) It is submitted that the writ petition being SCA No. 12033 of 2014, involving similar issue was came up for consideration before this Hon'ble Court and vide order dated 20.07.2015 the Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the petition and further the LPA No. 1469 of 2015 was filled challenging the order in SCA No. 12033 of 2014 was dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2017 and the said order came to be Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the petition vide order dated 17.07.2017. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-K is a copy of the order passed in SCA No. 12033 of 2014 dated Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:57:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12554/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined 20.07.2015. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure L is a copy of the order passed in LPA No. 1469 of 2015 dated 16.01.2017. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-M is a copy of the order dated 17.07.2017.
h) It is submitted that the writ petition being SCA No. 5361 of 2017, involving similar issue was came up for consideration before this Hon'ble Court and vide order dated 06.12.2017 the Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the petition as well as SCA No. 5362 of 2017 vide order dated 02.12.2017 and SCA No. 18398 of 2018 vide order dated 01.05.2019. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure N is a copy of the order passed in SCA No. 5361 of 2017 dated 06.12.2017 as well as SCA No. 5362 of 2017 vide order dated 02.12.2017 and SCA No. 18398 of 2018 vide order dated 01.05.2019.
i) That in any view of the matter the impugned order is bad in law and requires to be quashed and set aside.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nisarg D. Shah for Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:57:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12554/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Henil Shah for respondent No. 1, the advocates have submitted that the issue in petition is covered by order passed in SCA 5361 of 2017 and accordingly, this petition can be disposed of.
Therefore reproducing the relevant paragraphs in order passed in SCA No. 5361 of 2017 as under:
3. "By filing the present petition, petitioner has prayed to set aside order dated 06 February, 2017 passed by respondent No.1 denying to the petitioner the benefits of Tiku Pay Commission while calculating petitioner's retirement benefits. It is prayed to forthwith release the retirement dues with such benefits.
The petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc th basis as Class Il Medical Officer on 08 November, 1996 with State Government in the office of Medical Services, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Ahmedabad. Her services came to be th regularised as per order dated 24 March, 2005 and by passing consequential order, she was given Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:57:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12554/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined continuity of service with effect from 08th November, 1996 for the purpose of extension of benefits of salary and pension. The petitioner took th voluntary retirement on 11 February, 2017. The State Government passed Resolution dated th 17 October, 1994 giving the benefits of the Tiku Pay Commission recommendations to the categories of Medical Officers which included (i) who services as Medical Officers upon completion of continuous six years of service which were the first Tiku Pay Commission benefits; (ii) who completed further seven years of continuous service making total of thirteen years of continuous service being the second Tiku Pay Commission benefits. The petitioner was given the first Tiku Pay Commission benefits with effect from 08th November, 2002 and the second with effect from 08th November, 2009.
It is the case of the petitioner that on account of personal reasons, she decided to take voluntary th retirement by making application dated 10 Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:57:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12554/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined th November, 2016 which was accepted on 06 February, 2017. However, while permitting the petitioner to retire voluntarily, a condition was put that the Tiku Pay Commission benefits would be withdrawn and such benefits came to be th withdrawn citing Government Resolution dated 11 May, 2001. This was provided in the order dated th 06 February, 2017 itself. It is for this grievance that the present petition has filed. Learned advocate for the petitioner inter alia submitted as under.
th The Government Resolution dated 17 October, 1994 under which, the benefits of Tiku Pay Commission are extended to the Medical Officers does not curtall the same upon taking voluntary retirement. The th Government Resolution dated 17 October, 1994, under which the Government decided to extend the benefits to the Medical Officer relates to promotion and not the retirement;
Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:57:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12554/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined The application of Government Resolution th dated 11 May, 2001 is erroneous as the perusal of the said G.R. Reveals that-
(i) the Medical Officer may not be given concurrent benefits, that is benefits of senior scale and Tiku Pay Commission th at the same time. The G.R. dated 11 May, 2001 was specifically issued to clarify the position with regard to the officers who are getting the concurrent benefits, th
(ii) The G.R. dated 11 May, 2001 states that the Officers resigned or th voluntary retired between the period 14 November, 1994 will not be eligible for the benefits of Tiku Pay Commission as the same amounts to (concurrent) double benefits. The case of the petitioner does not fall in the said category.
On the other hand, the respondents defended their decision by relying on affidavit-in-reply which was filed in Special Civil Application No.5360 of Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:57:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12554/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined 2017 being a cognate petition involving the identical issue filed by similarly placed person which is also decided separately by order of even date along with third cognate petition being Special Civil Application No.5362 of 2017, all decided by separate but order of even date. Even as the rivals drew their contentions, it could not be denied that similar issue had arisen and dealt with by this Court in Harish Dunichand Chandrani v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.12033 of 2014 decided as per order th dated 20 July, 2015 where too the petitioner claimed benefits of Tiku Pay Commission, but the same was denied on the ground of the said petition having taken voluntary retirement. The said petitioner opted for voluntary retirement on medical ground having suffered stroke of paralysis and resultant permanent disability. The said order was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal No.1469 of 2015 which was dismissed by the Division th Bench by judgment dated 16 January, 2017. Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:57:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12554/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined Extracting the relevant paragraphs from the Judgment of the Letters Patent Bench,
7. From a reading of Government Resolution dated 11.05.2001 it is clear that Medial officers are not entitled to dual benefits of senior scale as well as the benefit of the recommendations of Tiku Pay Commission, Without going into the controversy, namely, whether the period from 14.11.1991 to 16.10.1994 applies to the case of the respondent or not, it is clear from the Government. Resolution itself that it is issued to clarify that the Medical officers are not entitled to the dual benefit of senior scale as well as the recommendations of Tiku Pay Commission. As it is not disputed that the respondent, was not entitled to the benefit of senior scale, there is no reason or Justification for denying the benefits of recommendations of Tiku Pay Commission. When the the respondent-original petitioner has not availed any benefit of senior scale, in which event the question of double benefit will not arise so as to apply Government Resolution dated 11.05.2001.
8. There is also yet another reason to reject this appeal. There is specific averment made in paras 10 and 11 of the petition by the respondent- original petitioner stating that similarly placed persons to that of the respondent-original petitioner, namely, (1) Dr.A.J. Oza, (ii) Dr.Hemant B. Patel, and (iii) Dr.M.J. Gupta, who have voluntarily retired as Class-II officers were also extended the benefit of the recommendations of Tiku Pay Commission for pensionary benefits, but the same was not dealt with in the reply filed by the appellants herein in the petition. As much as the appellants have not rebutted such allegations in the reply, they Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:57:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12554/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined have to be taken as admitted facts. In that view of the matter there is no reason or justification to make differentiation among similarly placed officers for the purpose of extending the benefit of the recommendations of Tiku Pay Commission. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of such discrimination among similarly placed persons while allowing the petition filed by the respondent original petitioner.
9. It is clear for us that Government Resolution dated 11.05.2001 cannot be applied to the case of the respondent and further similarly placed persons to that of the respondent were already extended the benefit of the recommendations of Tiku Pay Commission, we are of the view that there is no reason or justification in denying such benefit to the respondent-original petitioner, who had served the appellant-Department from st September 1985 to 31 December 2013 as Medical Officer Class-II. It is needless to observe that he was compelled to take voluntary retirement in view of disability suffered by him on account stroke which resulted into disability of paralysis to the extent of 75%.
10. For the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that no error is committed by the learned Single Judge so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No.12033 of 2014. For the aforesaid reasons this Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to cost."
The Division Bench of this Court dealt with the very issue in yet another case in State of Gujarat Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:57:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12554/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined v. Dr.Arpita Nitinkumar Dave being Letters Patent Appeal No. 1753 of 2017 arising from decision in Special Civil Application No.2165 of 2016 in which a contention was sought to be advanced on behalf of the respondent-State seeking to distinguish the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No.1469 of 2015 on the ground that voluntary retirement of the said employee-the petitioner concerned was on the medical ground that he has suffered disability because of paralysis. The Division Bench rejected such distinction and confirmed the order according the Tiku Pay Commission benefits which were th denied on the basis of Resolution dated 11 May, 2001 on the ground of taking voluntary retirement. Not only that the issue attained finality with the Apex Court dismissing Special Leave to Appeal on th 17 July, 2017 being Diary No.18150 of 2017 arising from aforementioned Letters Patent Appeal No.1469 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No. 12033 of 2014."
4. In light of above, the petition is allowed by Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:57:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12554/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined directing the respondents to recalculate and fix the retiral benefits to the petitioner by giving benefit of Tiku Pay Commission recommendations and to pay the arrears to the petitioner within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
5. The petition stands allowed as above. Direct service is permitted.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) PD Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:57:40 IST 2025