JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Meet Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of rule on behalf of the State - respondent. Heard Mr.K.B.Pujara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Meet Thakkar, learned AGP, for the State-respondent.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is that the Notification dated 11.01.2016 be quashed and set aside, inasmuch as, the notification states that the benefit of higher pay scale granted to the petitioner under the Tiku Pay Commission is liable to be withdrawn by virtue of the resolution dated 11.05.2001.

3. As such, the issue is covered by several decisions of this Court, which shall hereinafter be referred to. However, the facts of the present petition indicate as under:

3.1 The petitioner was appointed as a Medical official, Class-II, on 14.03.1990. She joined duties on 05.04.1990 in the pay scale of Rs.2,200- 4,000/-. The pay scale was revised to Rs.8,000-13,500/-, pursuant to the Gujarat Civil Service (Revision of Pay Rules) 1998. On being selected through the GPSC, the petitioner was appointed as a regular Medical official, Class-II, by a Government Resolution dated 22.11.1995 and regularized by a resolution of 17.01.2008.

3.2 As per the Scheme of the Tiku Pay Commission, the petitioner was granted the benefit of the first, the second and the third higher pay scales respectively on completion of 6, 7 and the requisite years of service based on the resolution. The matter of the entitlement of the petitioner was never in dispute.

3.3 Having rendered services qualifying for the purposes of pension and other terminal benefits, by an application dated 28.09.2015, the petitoner applied for voluntary retirement which was granted on 11.01.2016 with a condition that the same shall be sanctioned on her giving up the benefits of the Tiku Pay Commission. This was so done based on a resolution of the Government dated 11.05.2001. The petitioner's terminal benefits including pension, gratuity, commuted pension and leave encashment etc., were fixed on the basis of she having never drawn the benefits of the Tiku Pay Commission.

4. Mr.K.B.Pujara, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the issue of such conditional acceptance of voluntary retirement has been a subject matter of litigation before this Court and in the case of Haresh Chandanani v. State of Gujarat., rendered in Special Civil Application No. 12033 of 2014 which was decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 20.07.2015. The Court had held that the Government Resolution dated 11.05.2001 cannot be applied in case of the concerned petitioner and there was no justification on denying the benefits of the Tiku Pay Commission and passing orders of voluntary retirement conditionally on refunding the such benefits. The case of Chandanani (supra), was taken in appeal before the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1469 of 2015 and the Division Bench confirmed the view of the learned Single Judge and the State's Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also failed. 4.1 Mr.Pujara, learned counsel, would submit that yet in an another case in the case of Dr. Arpita Nitinkumar Dave, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 31.01.2017 considering the similar issue allowed the petition asking the authorities to revise pension orders by applying the recommendations of the Tiku Commission. There too, an appeal filed by the State, being Letters Patent Appeal No. 1753 of 2017, was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 06.10.2017. Based on these decisions, this Court also had considered the case of the petitioner therein in Special Civil Application No.21305 of 2019 in the case of Neena Raj Lakhani and passed orders following the decisions mentioned hereinabove.

4.2 Mr.Pujara, learned advocate, would submit that the case on hand is a fit case in which the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court despite r