Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the issue was covered by decision in Harish Dunichand Chandnani vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 12033 of 2014 decided as per order dated 20.07.2017 and confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1469 of 2015 decided on 16.01.2017.

5. Even as the rivals drew their contentions, the respondents could not deny the position legally obtaining that the question in this petition is already answered in Harish Dunichand Chandnani (supra). The petitioner in that petition claimed benefits of Tiku Pay Commission, but was denied on the ground of the petitioner having taken voluntary retirement. The said petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement on medical ground of sufferance of stroke of paralysis and resultant permanent disability.

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 respondentoriginal petitioner, who had served the appellant-Department from September 1985 to 31st 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."

5.2 The Division Bench of this Court dealt with the very issue in yet another case in State of Gujarat 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 C/SCA/14076/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2022 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 denied on the basis of Resolution dated 11.05.2001 on the ground of taking voluntary retirement. Not only that the issue attained finality with the Apex Court dismissing Special Leave to Appeal on 17.07.2017 being Diary No.18150 of 2017 arising from aforementioned Letters Patent Appeal No.1469 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No.12033 of 2014.