IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7483 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓

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

HITESH BALVANTRAI KOTHARI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR NINAD P SHAH(10911) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3 MS. NIDHI VYAS, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Date : 03/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Ninad P. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner as also Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for the respondents – State and its authorities, at length.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

“(A) Quash and set aside the order dated 16.6.2017 passed by the respondent authority and further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant compassionate pension to the petitioner, and (B) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate pension, and/ or (C) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant compassionate pension to the petitioner, and (D) Award the cost of this petition, and (E) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.”

3. At the outset, Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner would state that the petitioner was inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on 26.08.2010 and same was ultimately not disturbed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 09.04.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No.1761 of 2016.

3.1. Mr. Shah, learned advocate would submit that, despite the aforesaid punishment, as per Rules 77 & 78 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2002’) the petitioner is entitled to receive compassionate pension. It is submitted that the respondent, without taking into account the aforesaid Rules 2002, rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is serious in nature. It is submitted that, as per the settled legal position of law, the discretion is available with the respondent Authority, which requires to be reasonably exercised and without ascertaining the special condition of delinquent, merely on the ground of nature of punishment, the claim of compassionate pension should not be rejected.

3.2. Mr. Shah, learned advocate would further submit that the respondents Authorities have not taken into account the aforesaid Rules, 2002 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, which resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that the petitioner has rendered more than 27 years of service and as such, he is in need and support of compassionate pension as his entire family is dependent upon him, including minor children.

3.3. To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the following decisions:-

i. Arjunbhai Naranbhai Bhatiya Vs. Dy. Police Commissioner &

Anr. rendered in SCA No.22956 of 2006 dated 15.02.2017;

ii. Falguniben Mafatbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

rendered in SCA No.21962 of 2019 dated 13.11.2025.

4. Per contra, Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for the respondents would submit that there is no error committed by the respondents Authorities while rejecting the claim of the petitioner to seek compassionate pension. It is submitted that the petitioner was i