NAGINBHAI MOTIBHAI PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Ms. Dimple Thaker appearing for Mr.Rituraj M.Meena for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Amita Shah for the respondents.

(2.) Perused the record. Petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 9.10.2013, whereby he has been made to prematurely retire from his services from the Government, wherein he was serving as Section Officer in Agriculture and Co-operative Department. Such order of compulsory retirement is dated 9.10.2013, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A, which discloses that in the public interest, the petitioner has been made to retire prematurely. It is undisputed fact that petitioner has been appointed as Clerk in such department w.e.f. 26.5.1980 and he was granted benefit of first higher grade scale w.e.f. 26.5.1989 and then promoted to the post of Deputy Section Officer w.e.f. 11.4.1991 and given benefit of second higher grade scale w.e.f. 26.5.2004 as there is no complaint or adverse remarks during whole service period of the petitioner.

(3.) However, petitioner has received a severe paralytic attack and therefore, he was to be admitted in hospital frequently between 30.7.2007 to April, 2008. Ultimately on 18.4.2008, the Resident Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad has issued a fitness certificate, copy of which is at Annexure-R-I on page 52. Respondents are taking advantage of such certificate, though such certificate clearly discloses that it is not valid for Court purposes. It is surprising that how a Government Officer is issuing a certificate with an endorsement that it is not valid for Court purpose. Copy of such certificate is also produced by the petitioner on page 17 of the petition. Irrespective of above situation, it becomes clear that such certificate simply confirms that petitioner was under treatment till that date and he is now relieved from treatment from such hospital and thereby, according to the R.M.O., he is fit to perform his duties both personal as well as his office. However, it does not mean that petitioner is not disabled at all, as considered by the Department in their affidavit-in-reply.