JUDGMENT : 1. The prayers made in the present petition are perplexing. On being inquired from learned Advocate Mr. Tandel appearing on behalf of the petitioner about his prayers, he has submitted that the petitioner is seeking compassionate pension. 2. During pendency of the present petition, the petitioner expired on 13.05.2014 and, therefore, by order dated 10.07.2014 passed in Civil Application No.7230 of 2014 this court permitted the legal heir of the deceased petitioner to bring on record of the petition. 3. For the sake of convenience the facts pertaining to the service of the petitioner are taken from the impugned order dated 27.02.2004, by which the request of the petitioner for compassionate pension is rejected. 4. The petitioner (since deceased) was serving as Beat Guard with Forest Department, Vyara. A chargesheet was issued to him on 12.08.1976 by Deputy Forest Conservator, Vyara on the ground of carelessness. After completion of departmental inquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 16.06.1980. Against the said dismissal the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.2554 of 1990 before this Court, which came to be partly allowed by order dated 0304.09.1990 wherein this Court directed the respondent to pay 50% back wages and pass necessary order after giving opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner 13.10.1990 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service and he was asked to submit his defence statement. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his defence statement on 19.04.1991. Thereafter, Deputy Forest Conservator, Vyara by order dated 07.06.1991 discharged the petitioner from service. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved Appeal No.383 of 1991 before Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal, Gandhinagar, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.03.1992. However, it was observed that the petitioner is removed from service from the date of service of the order of respondent no.1, i.e. the order dated 07.06.1991 passed by Deputy Forest Conservator, Vyara, holding that the petitioner shall not be eligible for getting the Government service in future, came to be confirmed. 5. However, it was observed that the petitioner is removed from service from the date of service of the order of respondent no.1, i.e. the order dated 07.06.1991 passed by Deputy Forest Conservator, Vyara, holding that the petitioner shall not be eligible for getting the Government service in future, came to be confirmed. 5. On receipt of the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.07.1992 to the respondent authority i.e. the Principal Secretary with a prayer that he may be given pensionary/retiral benefits under the provisions of Rules 274 and 301 the Gujarat Civil Services Rules. Thereafter, the respondent authorities called for some details from the petitioner. 6. After submitting the application somewhere on 24.07.1992 for claiming the pension on compassionate ground i.e. under Rules 274 and 301 of the Rules, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.4589 of 1997 and at the admission stage this Court rejected the same. Again Special Civil Application No.11816 of 2000 was preferred wherein this Court directed to pass appropriate order and decided the representation submitted by the petitioner, which was decided against the petitioner. After receipt of the order of this Court, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 29.11.2000, which was decided by the authority without assigning any reason on 11.04.2002. 7. Against the aforesaid orders dated 11.04.2002 and 29.05.2002 the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.12129 of 2003 before this Court wherein on 29.11.2003 this Court passed the order of considering the representation of the petitioner on merits and further observed to assign reasons deciding the same. Again the respondent authorities passed the order dated 27.02.2004 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, which has given rise to the present petition. 8. The petitioner is claiming compassionate pension on the premise of Rule 274 of Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959. The same reads as under:- “RULE 274 : When a Government servant 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. Note 1. A dismissed Government servant is not eligible for compassionate pension. Note 2. See also Rule 186 and 165A. Note 3. Government may if the case is considered deserving of special treatment, sanction the grant to him of a compassionate pension. Note 1. A dismissed Government servant is not eligible for compassionate pension. Note 2. See also Rule 186 and 165A. Note 3. Government servants who are removed or compulsory retired from Government service on the ground of inefficiency, insolvency or misconduct, and are granted by Government, compassionate pension under this rule, are eligible to get with the sanction of Government death-cum-retirement gratuity (which shall be subject to the limits prescribed for the amount of pension in the Bombay Civil Services Rule 301) and the reduction of the amount of maximum gratuity admissible being made in the same proportion as is adopted in the case of pension. The grant of family pension should be regulated on the basis of compassionate pension in accordance with the provision in the Section IV of these rules. Subsection (viii) Family Pensions.” 9. The plain and simple reading of the aforesaid the Rule bespeaks that the government may grant compassionate appointment if the case deserves special treatment. Thus, the granting of compassionate appointment to a government servant who is removed from service depends on the discretion of the State Government if it thinks that his case deserves a special treatment. An employee under the aforesaid provisions cannot claim compassionate pension as a matter of right. The respondent authority, after going to the entire record of the petitioner and considering his misconduct, has decided not to confer the benefit of compassionate pension to him. The action of the respondents refusing compassionate pension to the petitioner does not suffer from statutory lacuna, hence, the impugned order liable to be sustained. “Note:2 to Rule 274 refers to Rule 186 which reads as under: RULE 186 : (a) A Government servant who is removed or required to retire from Government service for misconduct or insolvency shall be granted no pension other than a compassionate pension. (b) A Government servant who is removed or required to retire from Government service on the ground of inefficiency shall, if he be eligible for a superannuation or retiring pension, be granted such pension. If he be not eligible for superannuation or retiring pension, he shall be granted no pension other than a compassionate pension.” 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Janakba Abehsinh Zala Vs. If he be not eligible for superannuation or retiring pension, he shall be granted no pension other than a compassionate pension.” 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Janakba Abehsinh Zala Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2005 (8) G.H.J. 680 in reference to Rule 186 has held that looking to the conduct of the government servant which lead to his removal from service is not entitled to compassionate pension. 11. It is pertinent to note that the Special Civil Application No.4589 of 1997 claiming the benefit of compassionate appointment was withdrawn unconditionally by the petitioner for pursuing his representation, and the same was rejected. This Court did not reserve any liberty to challenge any subsequent action of the respondent authorities. The petitioner, thereafter, has filed series of petitions for the same cause of action, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 12. In my considered opinion, the petitioner’s case does not deserve special treatment for grant of compassionate pension. Hence, the impugned order does not require any interference from this Court. The petition is dismissed, accordingly. RULE is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitioner dismissed.