[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Commissioner, Health, Medical ... vs Chauhan Nirav Pravinkumar on 10 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/922/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 922 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
=============================================
COMMISSIONER, HEALTH, MEDICAL SERVICES AND MEDICAL
EDUCATION & ORS.
Versus
CHAUHAN NIRAV PRAVINKUMAR & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS. NIDHI VYAS, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
JAIMIN A GANDHI(8065) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 10/04/2026
JUDGMENT
[1] Heard Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for the petitioners,
Mr. Jaimin A. Gandhi, learned advocate for respondent No.1.
[2] With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties, the present matter is taken up for
hearing. However, presence of respondent No.2 is not
required to determine the present petition.
[3] RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Jaimin Gandhi, learned
advocate waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of
respondent No.1.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/922/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
[4] The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-
"A) Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit the Petition.
B) Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ,
Order or Direction to quash and set aside the impugned order
passed by the Court of Commissioner, (For Disabled Person),
Gujarat State, Gandhinagar in case No.679/2019 of dated
12.06.2019 and to restore the Office Order dated 30.03.2019
passed by the Commissioner of Health.
C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil
Application Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the impugned
Order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the Court of Commissioner
(For Disabled Person), Gujarat State, Gandhinagar in Case
No. 679/2019.
D) Be pleased the Ad-interim to grant relief till the next date,
to not to implement Order dated the Court of the impugned
12.06.2019 passed by Commissioner (For Disabled Person),
Gujarat State, Gandhinagar in Case No. 679/2019.
E) Be pleased grant any other and further relief as think fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in
the interest of justice."
[5] The short facts of the case appear to be that respondent
No.1 was appointed as Junior Pharmacist on a fixed pay, who
appears to have tendered his resignation on 13.10.2012. It
appears that respondent No.1 requested the petitioner to
permit him to withdraw his resignation by submitting his
application dated 25.04.2014. The same appears to have been
accepted by petitioner and allowed him to join the duty.
Thereafter, respondent No.1 requested the petitioner to
regularize the period between 13.10.2012 and 12.05.2014 by
treating it as leave without pay. Since the said period exceeds
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/922/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
the jurisdiction of the petitioner to regularize such period, a
proposal was sent to the State who opined that once the
resignation has been tendered by respondent No.1, he could
not have been allowed to join the duty. Accordingly, vide
order dated 30.03.2019, the petitioner terminated the
services of respondent No.1
[5.1] Instead of challenging the aforesaid termination order
before the competent Court / Tribunal, respondent No.1 had
approached respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner of Disabled
Person, Gujarat State, who vide impugned order dated
12.06.2019 allowed the request of the respondent No.1
whereby quashed and set aside the order his termination.
Hence, the present petition.
[6] Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for the petitioners would
vehemently submit that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to
interfere with the order of termination. It is submitted that
the application filed by respondent No.1 before respondent
No.2 was not maintainable and as such, impugned order is
passed by respondent No.2 without having any jurisdiction.
[7] Per contra, Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate for respondent
No.1 would support the decision taken by respondent No.2
and would submit that respondent No.1 being disabled
person, subjected to humiliation by petitioner, had
approached respondent No.2 who exercised the powers under
the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 (for short 'the Act, 2016), and correctly quashed and set
aside the impugned order and this Court may not interfere
with it. Alternatively, Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate would
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/922/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
request this Court that if this Court comes to the conclusion
that the impugned order passed is without jurisdiction, liberty
may be granted to respondent No.1 to challenge the order of
termination dated 30.03.2019 before appropriate Court /
Tribunal in accordance with law and the time spent in the
proceedings before respondent No.2 and before this Court
may be given set-off.
[8] Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon considering the aforesaid undisputed fact, it
appears that respondent No.1 was contractual employee of
petitioner who tendered his resignation on 13.10.2012 which
was withdrawn on 25.04.2014 whereby he was permitted to
resume the duty. Such action of the petitioner was
disapproved by the State and consequently, respondent No.1
came to be terminated from service vide order dated
30.03.2019 by the petitioner.
[9] Respondent No.1, having aggrieved and dissatisfied with
his termination, approached respondent No.2 by filling a case
No.679 of 2019. Respondent No.2, by considering the aspect
about maintainability and having any jurisdiction to go into lis
between the parties, so far as termination is concerned, made
out a case and allowed the aforesaid case in favour of
respondent No.1, thereby, quashed and set aside the order of
his termination.
[10] This Court has called upon Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate
for respondent No.1 to point any provisions of the Act, 2016,
whereby respondent No.1 can file any such case before
respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 can exercise the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/922/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
powers under the Act, 2016. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate
would unable to point out any such provisions of law.
[11] Thus, in light of the aforesaid, in absence of any
provisions whereby respondent No.2 can exercise its power to
interfere with the order of termination, according to my
considered view, impugned order dated 12.06.2019 passed by
respondent No.2 is held to be without jurisdiction and
requires to be quashed and set aside, which is hereby
quashed and set aside. At the same time, it is always open for
respondent No.1 to challenge order of termination dated
30.03.2019 before the competent Court of law / Tribunal.
Further, it is hereby observed that the time spent by
respondent No.1 before respondent No.2 by filing the
aforesaid case and thereafter time spent in this petition be
given set-off in any proceedings which may be initiated by
respondent No.1 in accordance with law. Moreover,
respondent No.1 is permitted to claim benefit of Section 14 of
the Limitation Act.
[12] In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present petition
is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
No costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Lalji Desai
