Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Harish Dunichand Chandnani vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 20 July, 2015

Sunilbhai Govindlal Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2019

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 dated 20th 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 Bench by judgment dated 16th January, 2017.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Hamirbhai Kababhai Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 22 June, 2021

10. In facts of the present case, the petitioners were allowed voluntary retirement, Page 8 of 9 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 01 06:29:45 IST 2021 C/SCA/8506/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2021 however, the benefits of Tikku Pay Commission recommendations was refused and higher pay scale benefits were also withdrawn. Therefore, in view of the decisions in case of Harish Dunichand Chandnani(supra) and Dr. Arpita Nitinkumar Dave (supra), the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Maheshkumar Shanilal Upadhyay vs State Of Gujarat on 22 June, 2021

10. In facts of the present case, the petitioners were allowed voluntary retirement, Page 8 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 07 06:47:45 IST 2021 C/SCA/8506/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2021 however, the benefits of Tikku Pay Commission recommendations was refused and higher pay scale benefits were also withdrawn. Therefore, in view of the decisions in case of Harish Dunichand Chandnani(supra) and Dr. Arpita Nitinkumar Dave (supra), the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Maheshkumar Shanilal Upadhyay vs State Of Gujarat on 22 June, 2021

10. In facts of the present case, the petitioners were allowed voluntary retirement, Page 8 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 15 07:35:00 IST 2022 C/SCA/8506/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2021 however, the benefits of Tikku Pay Commission recommendations was refused and higher pay scale benefits were also withdrawn. Therefore, in view of the decisions in case of Harish Dunichand Chandnani(supra) and Dr. Arpita Nitinkumar Dave (supra), the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Dr. Arpita Nitinkumar Dave vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 31 January, 2017

In this background, the decision rendered by this Court in case of 'Harish Dunichand Chandnani Vs. State of Gujarat and Others', in Page 3 of 7 HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Thu Feb 02 04:11:25 IST 2017 C/SCA/21654/2016 ORDER Special Civil Application No. 12033 of 2014 deserve to be referred to, wherein also, it was the case of the three doctors taking voluntary retirement as Class II officers and the Court having allowed the benefits of Tikku Pay Commission in favour of those petitioners and ordered re-fixing of their pension. That has been challenged before the appellate forum, which also confirmed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, while observing and holding as under
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document
1   2 Next