Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: paralysis in State Of Gujarat & 3 vs Harish Dunichand Chandnani on 16 January, 2017Matching Fragments
2. Necessary facts in brief for disposal of the appeal are as under. The respondent-original petitioner is a retired Medical Officer, Class-II. He joined the services of the State Government in the Office of the Medical Service, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Ahmedabad, as Medical Officer, Class-II, in the year 1985. He worked as such from September 1985 to 31 st December 2013 as Class-II Officer. He was given the benefit of Tiku Pay Commission with effect from 4th September 1991, viz. on completion of six years of continuous service. The said benefit was extended pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1994. Further, benefit was also extended as recommended in Tiku Pay Commission on completion of 13 years of continuous service, with effect from 04.09.1998. In 2012, he suffered a stroke of paralysis, which resulted in 75% of permanent disability. As such he was compelled to take voluntary retirement. His request for voluntary retirement was accepted and he came to be retired as having voluntarily retired with effect from 31.12.2013.
6. On the other hand it is submitted by Ms.Mauna M. Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent- original petitioner that the respondent had worked as Medical Officer from September 1985 to 31st December 2013 as Class-II Officer. It is submitted that he was already given the benefit of the recommendations of Tiku Pay Commission from 04.09.1991, viz. on completion of six years of continuous service. Again he was also given further benefit on completing 13 years of continuous service with effect from 04.09.1998. It is submitted that as he suffered stroke of paralysis in the year 2012, resulting into 75% permanent disability he had to apply for voluntary retirement and on acceptance thereof he was retired voluntarily. It is the say of the learned counsel for the respondent- original petitioner that by misinterpreting the Government Resolution dated 11.05.2001, the appellants have wrongly denied the benefit of the recommendations of Tiku Pay Commission while fixing the pay. It is submitted that in view of the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, there are no merits in this appeal so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
9. It is clear for us that Government Resolution dated 11.05.2001 cannot be applied to the case of the respondent and HC-NIC Page 5 of 12 Created On Sat Aug 12 02:04:08 IST 2017 5 of 12 C/LPA/1469/2015 JUDGMENT 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 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%.
2. Necessary facts in brief for disposal of the appeal are as under. The respondent-original petitioner is a retired Medical Officer, Class-II. He joined the services of the State Government in the Office of the Medical Service, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Ahmedabad, as Medical Officer, Class-II, in the year 1985. He worked as such from September 1985 to 31 st December 2013 as Class-II Officer. He was given the benefit of Tiku Pay Commission with effect from 4th September 1991, viz. on completion of six years of continuous service. The said benefit was extended pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1994. Further, benefit was also extended as recommended in Tiku Pay Commission on completion of 13 years of continuous service, with effect from 04.09.1998. In 2012, he suffered a stroke of paralysis, which resulted in 75% of permanent disability. As such he was compelled to take voluntary retirement. His request for voluntary retirement was accepted and he came to be retired as having voluntarily retired with effect from 31.12.2013.