Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhavna Jayesh Parikh on 22 September, 2022
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/LPA/1219/2022 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1219 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8293 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1219 of 2022
===============================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHAVNA JAYESH PARIKH
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR KB PUJARA(680) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PARESHKUMAR B TRIVEDI(9926) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 22/09/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)
1. Admit. Mr.K.B.Pujara, learned advocate, waives service of notice
on behalf of respondent No.1.
2. With consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
3. By way of present appeal under Clause - 15 of the Letters
Patent, the State Authorities have challenged oral order dated
28.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in captioned
writ petition as far as the amount of costs to the tune of Rs.5
lacs has been ordered to be paid to the original petitioner.
C/LPA/1219/2022 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2022
4. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants - State Authorities, would submit
that respondent No.1 herein - original petitioner, who was
working as medical officer, submitted an application for
voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme on
28.09.2015 with effect from 11.01.2016. The said application
was accepted by order / notification dated 11.01.2016. The
original petitioner was not granted the higher pay scale in view
of the fact that the issue with regard to the higher pay scale,
which was decided by learned Single Judge by oral order dated
20.07.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12033 of
2014. The decision dated 20.07.2015 passed in Special Civil
Application No. 12033 of 2014 was challenged before the
Division Bench of this Court by way of filing Letters Patent
Appeal No. 1469 of 2015 and by order dated 16.01.2017, the
Division Bench of this Court confirmed the decision passed by
learned Single Judge. Against the said decision, Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18150 of 2017 came to be filed before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by order dated 17.07.2017, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision passed in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 1469 of 2015 by dismissing the Special Leave
Petition. He would further submit that the petitioner has
already retired from the year 2016; however, he has preferred
the writ petition claiming the similar benefits in the year 2021.
He would further submit that considering all these aspects,
learned Single Judge has already directed the State Authorities
to grant all the benefits with interest at the rate of 10%. He
would further submit that considering the aforesaid facts, the
C/LPA/1219/2022 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2022
amount of cost imposed by learned Single Judge be quashed
and set aside.
5. On the other hand, Mr.K.B.Pujara, learned advocate appearing
for the respondent No. 1 - original petitioner, would submit
that though, the State Authorities aware about the order passed
in the identical matter, which was decided way back on
20.07.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12033 of
2014, and also about the fact that the petitioner made
application for voluntary retirement on 28.09.2015 with effect
from 11.01.2016, no benefits were granted. He would further
submit that in similar cases, the reliefs have been granted;
however, instead of granting the benefits to the petitioner at
par with those employees, the petitioner had to come before this
Court and, therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly imposed
the cost. He would further submit that in similar type of cases,
cost has been imposed by this Court in number of cases and,
therefore, cost may not be disturbed.
6. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the application for voluntary
retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) was
filed on 28.09.2015, which was granted by the State Authorities
on 11.01.2016; however, no benefits were granted though, the
judgment was delivered by learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No. 12033 of 2014 on 20.07.2015. However, it is
equally true that the said order was challenged by filing Letters
C/LPA/1219/2022 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2022
Patent Appeal No. 1469 of 2015 and, by order dated
16.01.2017, the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the
decision passed by learned Single Judge. Against the said
decision, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18150 of 2017
came to be filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, by
order dated 17.07.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the
decision passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1469 of 2015 by
dismissing the Special Leave Petition.
8. It is also pertinent to note that subsequent to dismissal of the
Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for the
first time, the petitioner has approached before this Court in the
year 2021.
9. We would like to reproduce the operative part of the order of
learned Single Judge in Para - 12 as under:
"12. This is one case therefore, which deserves to be allowed
with cost of Rs.5 lakhs too. The petition is allowed. The
order of 11.01.2016 which compelled the petitioner to
accept voluntary retirement sans the benefits of the Tiku
Pay Commission is quashed and set aside. The respondents
are directed to revise the retirement benefits of pension,
gratuity, commuted pension, leave encashment etc.,
without withdrawing the benefit of higher pay scales as the
petitioner was entitled to and had earned of the Tiku Pay
Commission. The benefits shall be paid with interest @
10%. Cost of Rs.5 lacs shall also be paid to the petitioner.
The entire exercise shall be complied within a period of 12
weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Direct service
is permitted."
C/LPA/1219/2022 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2022
10. Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
the fact that the petitioner filed captioned writ petition in the
year 2021 as well as the fact that learned Single Judge has
directed to grant the benefits at the rate of 10% interest, we are
of the opinion that cost of Rs.5 lacs is not required to be
imposed. Hence, the appeal stands allowed and the order passed
by learned Single Judge is hereby modified to the extent that
cost of Rs.5 Lacs imposed by learned Single Judge is hereby
quashed and set aside. Rest of the order shall remain as it is.
11. It is also expected that the Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat,
shall look into such type of matters keeping in mind the
circular dated 22.08.2014 and shall also see that if any decision
becomes final and if found that it is applicable to the similarly
situated employee, shall give direction to comply with the order
forthwith.
12. In view of the order passed in the appeal, civil application does
not survive. Accordingly, civil application stands disposed of.
(A.J.DESAI, J)
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
*F.S.KAZI.....
