Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: paralysis in Nina Raj Lakhani vs State Of Gujarat on 17 March, 2022Matching Fragments
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. The said order was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal No.1469 of 2015 which was dismissed by the Division Bench by judgment dated 16th January, 2017. 5.1 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 the recommendations of Tiku Pay Commission. When the respondent- original petitioner has not availed any benefit of senior scale, in which event the question of C/SCA/21305/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2022 double benefit will not arise so as to apply Government Resolution dated 11.05.2001.
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 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 C/SCA/21305/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2022 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.