JUDGMENT : M.R SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7086/2013 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition and has confirmed the order passed by the appropriate authority denying compassionate pension to the appellant herein-original petitioner, original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. At the outset it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that as such the appellant herein-original petitioner was dismissed from service for serious misconduct of misappropriation of the amount; taking official record to his residence and of unauthorized leave. However, subsequently at his request the order of dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement. Thereafter, the original petitioner prayed for compassionate pension. However, his application was not decided, and therefore, he preferred Special Civil Application No. 1109/2006 before this Court, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge by relegating the original petitioner to make a representation. However while disposing of the said Special Civil Application the learned Single Judge specifically observed as under; “2. Learned counsel Mr. Supehia, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the case of the petitioner could have been considered under Rule 77 and 78 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 and even compassionate pension cannot be denied on the ground of the retirement being punitive. It was, however, conceded that compassionate pension cannot be claimed as a matter of right and, therefore, obviously, no mandamus can be issued for the purpose of granting compassionate pension to a Government employee under the said Rules. As expressly provided in the provisions of Rule 78, when a Government employee is removed or required to retire from Government service for misconduct or insolvency, the Government may, if the case is considered deserving of special treatment, sanction the grant of compassionate pension. Such cases are clearly distinct from the cases of the dismissed Government employee who would not be even eligible for compassionate pension.” 2.1 Thereafter, as the representation was not decided, the original petitioner preferred another petition, which also came to be disposed of by directing the appropriate authority to decide the representation submitted by the original petitioner. Such cases are clearly distinct from the cases of the dismissed Government employee who would not be even eligible for compassionate pension.” 2.1 Thereafter, as the representation was not decided, the original petitioner preferred another petition, which also came to be disposed of by directing the appropriate authority to decide the representation submitted by the original petitioner. Thereafter by the impugned order, impugned in the main Special Civil Application, the prayer of the original petitioner for compassionate pension came to be rejected. The aforesaid was the subject matter before the learned Single Judge and by the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition by observing that the original petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot ask for compassionate pension. The learned Single Judge has observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appropriate authority rightly denied and/or rejected the claim of the original petitioner of compassionate pension. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. We have heard Shri M.N Marfatia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein-original petitioner and Shri Munshaw, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original petitioner was dismissed from service and thereafter compulsorily retired for the serious misconduct of misappropriate of public money ; taking official record to his residence and remaining on unauthorized leave. Thereafter, the original petitioner claimed compassionate pension. Rule 78 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002 reads as under; 78 Grant of compassionate pension in deserving cases by Government: (1) When a Government employee is removed or required to retire from Government service for misconduct or insolvency or is removed or required to retire from Government service on grounds of inefficiency before he is eligible for a Retiring or Superannuation Pension, Government may, if the case is considered deserving of special treatment, sanction the grant to him of a compassionate pension. (2) A dismissed Government employee is not eligible for Compassionate Pension.” 4.1 Considering the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the original petitioner, as a matter of right, can claim compassionate pension. (2) A dismissed Government employee is not eligible for Compassionate Pension.” 4.1 Considering the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the original petitioner, as a matter of right, can claim compassionate pension. Even the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner has fairly conceded that the original petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot pray for compassionate pension. Even in the earlier round of litigation also the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner conceded that the original petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot claim compassionate pension under Rule 78 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002. We have considered the order denying compassionate pension to the appellant herein-original petitioner. Discretion has rightly been exercised by the appropriate authority while denying the compassionate pension to the original petitioner. As observed hereinabove, the original petitioner was as such dismissed from service for serious misconduct, which was thereafter converted into compulsory retirement. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.