S K GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner was working as the Armed Constable. The petitioner was appointed as Armed Police Constable on 5.2.1983 in State Reserve Police at Rajkot. On 12.8.1992 when he was on duty at the check post he was crushed down by the speeding vehicle and as a result he sustained injury on his left leg and ultimately the said left leg was required to be amputated. As per Medical Certificate there was 75% disability and he was given light work in the Wireless Section and he was doing the same since last about six years satisfactory. On 22.10.1999 he was examined by the Medical Board and was found fit for the table work or light work duty. It appears that thereafter vide letter dated 21.2.2000 the Board again asked for check up of the petitioner, however, according to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 did not think it fit to send the petitioner for medical check up. The petitioner was discharging the work of light duty but respondent No. 3 on 17.1.2001 passed an order of retiring the petitioner from service on the ground that in the State Reserve Police there is no provision of light duty or table work and therefore he should be retired from service. It appears that thereafter on 12.7.2001 another order came to be passed whereby the petitioner was taken back in service on account of the order dated 9.4.2001 passed by Director General of Police and pursuant thereto the petitioner resumed his duties on 17.7.2001. In the order dated 12.7.2001 passed by Senapati (Commandant) of the State Reserve Police, Division 13, the period of his retirement as invalid from 17.1.2001 till the resumption of duty i.e. upto 16.7.2001 was to be treated as exceptional leave and hence the same has been treated by the department as exceptional leave. It is the case of the petitioner that though the salary of the said period was payable it was wrongly treated as extraordinary leave without pay. In view of such circumstances, the petitioner who initially had challenged the order of his retirement on the ground of invalidity has amended the petition and has prayed for direction to the respondent to treat the petitioner on duty from 17.1.2001 to 16.7.2001 and to pay salary of all consequential benefits with interest @ 12% p.a.. Hence, the petition before this Court.

(2.) Heard Mr. I.S. Supehia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mini Nair, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

(3.) It is an undisputed position that the initial prayer made for challenging the order of retiring the petitioner from service on the ground of invalidity would no more survive, since the petitioner has been taken back in service from 17.7.2001 and therefore the only aspect to be considered in the present petition is his entitlement for the salary during the period from 17.1.2001 to 16.7.2001 and continuity in service for consequential benefits.