P.P. Bhatt, J.

1. The petitioner, by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/order for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29.01.2013 and also prayed that the respondents may be directed to forthwith pay the amount of gratuity and the pensionary benefits.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

"2.1 The petitioner was serving as a Police Constable since last 25 years with the respondents. He was promoted as a Head Constable on 24.06.1993, and he was charge-sheeted in February-2000 for the alleged misappropriation. The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter inquiry was conducted, and an order of compulsory retirement from the services came to be passed on 21.03.2002. The petitioner preferred a Revision Application before the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City in which the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed vide order dated 17.04.2002. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, and the same also came to be rejected vide order dated 06.08.2002 by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner by a representation dated 01.08.2007 requested the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, to grant him compassionate pension as also to release the amount of gratuity. In the said representation, the petitioner has mentioned about his blotless career of 25 years and financial and social circumstances of the family including the fact that his son is mentally challenged, and the daughter is suffering from polio and for want of any other source of income, it will be difficult for him to maintain the family, and therefore, he has prayed that the amount of gratuity may be released at the earliest, and the compassionate pension may be fixed as per the Rules. The Deputy Director (Accounts) from the Office of Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad forwarded the proposal with specific intimation/ recommendation that looking to the family circumstances described by the employee, there should not be any deduction in compassionate pension as well as in the amount of gratuity. Despite the proposal made by the Deputy Director (Accounts) from the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, the request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate pension as well as release of amount of gratuity has been turned down by the impugned order dated 29.01.2013, and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances."

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the compassionate pension in view of the Rules 78 and 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. It is submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority which was affirmed by the Appellate as well as Revisional Authority, but he has prayed for grant of compassionate pension in view of the aforesaid Rules. It is submitted that initially, the Disciplinary Authority proposed the punishment of dismissal from the services, but after perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority thought it fit to reduce the said punishment, and finally inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement by taking a sympathetic view in light of the family circumstances highlighted by the petitioner. Learned advocate further submits that the request of the petitioner was forwarded by the Deputy Director (Accounts), Office of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, with specific recommendation that in view of the family circumstances, there should not be any deduction from the amount of gratuity as well as compassionate pension. Learned advocate further submits that the impugned order is passed without proper consideration of the facts and circumstances described in the proposal forwarded by the Office of the Commissioner of Police. It is submitted that while rejecting the request, in