##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10385/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026

0.436259022453675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10385 of 2022

==========================================================

MONPARA VIJAYKUMAR BHAGWANJI Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS DHRUTI PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,5,6,7,8

MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Date : 23/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 17.3.2026, the District Primary Committee – respondent No.5 has passed the order dated 20.3.2026 whereby it approved family pension in favour of the petitioner. Mr.Manish Patel, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.4 has tendered the aforesaid order for perusal of this Court which

is ordered to be taken on record.

2. This Court vide its order dated 17.3.2026 passed the following order.

“1. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none present for respondent No. 4-District

Primary Education Officer.

Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 01:51:55 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10385/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026

0.436259022453675

2. Heard Mr. Kunal S. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Dhruti Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondent-State.

3. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the father of the petitioner was a pensioner and upon his death, being an handicapped son, the petitioner is entitled to receive pensionary benefits from the respondents. It is submitted that due to discrepancy in the name, the petitioner was advised to submit an affidavit, wherein, inadvertently it was mentioned that the petitioner was doing business and on this ground alone, vide impugned communication dated 13.08.2021, respondent No. 4 has rejected the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has made a detailed representation dated 06.12.2021 pointing out that he was in fact a handicapped person and not fully conversant with the English language, wherein, the affidavit was sworn. It is also stated that the petitioner is not doing any business and as per certificate issued by the Mamlatdar, his income was nil for the year 2020. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent authority has not reviewed its

decision.

4. Having heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and upon perusal of the above-referred affidavit and the order impugned dated 13.08.2021, prima facie, it appears that the authority concerned has not bothered to actually inquire into the status of the petitioner as to whether, in fact, the petitioner is doing any business or not and appears to have taken a shortcut by placing reliance upon one word of the affidavit submitted by the petitioner. It appears

Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 01:51:55 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10385/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026

0.436259022453675

that the affidavit was prepared in English and the petitioner may not be fully conversant with it, which might have resulted into this difficulty. At the same time, irrespective of such affidavit, it was incumbent upon the respondent concerned to inquire and to verify as to whether the petitioner is really unemployed due to his

physical handicappedness.

5. To give one last opportunity to the respondent No. 4, who is the contesting respondent in this

matter, S.O. to 20.03.2026”

3. In view of the aforesaid development and the order passed by respondent No.5 on 20.3.2026, the principal grievance raised by the petitioner is already redressed by the concerned respondent. As such, nothing would survive i