JUDGMENT : 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. 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 the impugned order at Paragraph No. 2, it is mentioned that since the period of more than ten years has lapsed after dismissal/suspension, compassionate pension cannot be granted in a case of compulsory retirement. It is submitted that while rejecting the request, in the impugned order at Paragraph No. 2, it is mentioned that since the period of more than ten years has lapsed after dismissal/suspension, compassionate pension cannot be granted in a case of compulsory retirement. According to learned advocate for the petitioner, there is a total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents-authorities because the petitioner moved an application for compassionate pension way-back in 2007 within one year from the date of the second Revision Application preferred by the petitioner. It is submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Rules 78 and 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, the respondents-authorities are required to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate pension. However, the said benefit has been denied without proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. Learned advocate, in support of his submissions, has referred to and relied upon the decision given in the case of R.R. Parekh v. High Court of Gujarat and another reported AIR 2016 SC 3356 . 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, while opposing the present petition, tried to justify the order passed by the respondents-authorities, and submits that the petitioner is not having any legal or constitutional right. It is submitted that under Rules 78 and 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, discretion lies with the respondents-authorities to grant compassionate pension. It is submitted that compassionate pension cannot be granted as a matter of course. It is a discretionary power vested with the authority and if the concerned authority feels that the case deserves for grant of compassionate pension, in that case only, such discretion shall be exercised, and compassionate pension can be granted. 6. In support of his submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader has referred to and relied upon the decision dated 04.08.2010 given in the case of Ramdas Kalubhai Mali v. State of Gujarat and others in Special Civil Application No. 6427/2010. By referring to Rule 78(1) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, it is submitted that discretion lies with the authority, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner has been inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement on account of charges proved against him in the departmental inquiry. By referring to Rule 78(1) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, it is submitted that discretion lies with the authority, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner has been inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement on account of charges proved against him in the departmental inquiry. It is submitted that the said order inflicting punishment has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority, and therefore, there was no reason for the respondents-authorities to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner for grant of compassionate pension. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the decision referred to and relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioner has no bearing on the facts of the present case because in the said judgment, Rules 78 and 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 have not been taken into consideration. 7. Regard being had to the above submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the petitioner has been inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement from the services by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner applied for grant of compassionate pension as well as release of amount of gratuity by his representation dated 01.08.2007. It further appears that after submission of the said application, the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate pension and release of amount of gratuity was forwarded by the Deputy Director (Accounts), Office of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, with a specific note/recommendation that in view of Rules 78 and 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get compassionate pension. While furnishing the details in a prescribed format, it is specifically mentioned that looking to the family circumstances of the petitioner, there should not be any deduction in compassionate pension as also in the amount of gratuity. Not only that, but it is also mentioned that considering length of 25 years of service rendered by the petitioner, and considering his family circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement instead of dismissal from the services so that he can get some financial benefit. Not only that, but it is also mentioned that considering length of 25 years of service rendered by the petitioner, and considering his family circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement instead of dismissal from the services so that he can get some financial benefit. Despite specific recommendation made by the Deputy Director (Accounts), Commissioner of Police, the Office Superintendent (Accounts), the Commissioner of Police rejected the request made by the petitioner for grant of compassionate pension as well as release of amount of gratuity. The reason assigned by the said authority cannot be accepted because the petitioner filed appeal against the impugned order of compulsory retirement and after dismissal of appeal, he has preferred a Revision Application, and the said Revision Application was decided later part in the year 2006. Thereafter, he has also preferred a second Revision Application, and the same was dismissed on 04.07.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application within reasonable period for grant of compassionate pension on 01.08.2007. Therefore, it would not be just and proper to reject the application on the ground of delay and latches. The respondent-authority was required to consider the provisions contained in Rules 78 and 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, but on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is no discussion with regard to the said Rules, and the said authority has not mentioned anything in the order as to why the petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the compassionate pension under the aforesaid Rules. The respondents-authorities have not considered the circumstances mentioned by the petitioner especially family circumstances about the condition of his daughter and son that one son is mentally challenged and the daughter is suffering from polio, and there is no other source of income to maintain the family, except meager amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month earned by his son by working in private sector. 3,000/- per month earned by his son by working in private sector. The Deputy Director (Accounts) from the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, while forwarding the proposal, has also specifically recommended the case of the petitioner by mentioning his family circumstances as well as the Rule position, but the respondent-Office of the Commissioner of Police, while considering the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate pension as well as release of amount of gratuity, has failed to consider the note/recommendation made by the Deputy Director (Accounts), Office of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City. The judgment referred to and relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner given in the case of R.R. Parekh (supra) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Paragraph Nos. 20 and 21 of the said judgment are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition, and therefore, the same are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: "20. That leads us to the issue of the punishment which has been imposed on the Appellant. The Appellant has been dismissed from service. The submission of the Appellant is that having regard to the fact that he has an unblemished record of service, the imposition of the punishment of dismissal would be disproportionate to the misconduct which has been found to be established. Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeals) Rules 1971 enunciates disciplinary penalties. Among them is (i) compulsory retirement; (ii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under Government; (iii) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under Government. The punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct established. Having due regard to the nature of the misconduct which has been found to be established and the totality of circumstances we are of the view that the punishment of dismissal should stand substituted by an order of compulsory retirement. The Appellant has attained the age of superannuation and would be entitled to his retirement benefits on that basis. 21. We accordingly allow the Appeals in part. We confirm the judgment of the High Court insofar as it rejects the challenge by the Appellate to the finding of misconduct. The Appellant has attained the age of superannuation and would be entitled to his retirement benefits on that basis. 21. We accordingly allow the Appeals in part. We confirm the judgment of the High Court insofar as it rejects the challenge by the Appellate to the finding of misconduct. However, for the reasons which would have indicated above we direct that the order of dismissal from service shall stands substituted with an order of compulsory retirement which shall take effect from 14th July 2009, the date on which the final order of penalty was imposed upon the Appellant." 8. The submissions advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the impugned order is not a speaking order. There is no justification given by the respondents-authorities while rejecting the application for grant of compassionate pension. Moreover, the provisions as contained in Rules 78 and 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 are also required to be considered by the respondents-authorities, but on perusal of the said order, nowhere the said Rule is mentioned or discussed in any manner. Rules 78 and 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 are reproduced hereinbelow: "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. 79. (2) A dismissed Government employee is not eligible for Compassionate Pension. 79. Amount of Compassionate Pension to be fixed by Government in each case: The amount of Compassionate Pension granted to a Government employee under rule-78 shall be such as Government may fix in each case: Provided that, (a) When a Government employee is removed from Government service for insolvency, inefficiency or misconduct, it shall not exceed two-thirds of the invalid pension which would have been admissible to him had he retired on a medical certificate; and (b) When a Government employee is required to retire from service for insolvency, inefficiency or misconduct, it shall be at a rate not less than two-thirds of and not more than full invalid pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement, had he retired on medical certificate." 9. On perusal of the aforesaid Rules, it becomes clear that Government may consider if the case deserves special treatment. Thus, in view of Rule 78, the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered. The discretion ought to have been exercised by considering the family circumstances stated by the petitioner. The compassionate pension can be granted in a cases where compulsory retirement is inflicted by way of punishment. The judgment referred to and relied upon by learned Assistant Government Pleader given in the case of M.G. Prajapati v. State of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No. 13124/2009 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because it was not a case wherein the punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted by way of punishment, but it was a case where compulsory retirement was made on account of inefficiency at the time of reviewing the service record of the employee concerned at the age of 50/55. The submission made by learned Assistant Government Pleader that it is a discretionary power vested with the authority concerned, cannot be disputed but at the same point of time, Government Officers exercising such discretionary powers should not forget that the discretion is required to be exercised in a just manner in view of the aforesaid Rule position. There should be objective analysis of each case and if the circumstances stated by the employees deserve special treatment, such cases are required to be considered sympathetically and discretion is required to be exercised in a appropriate deserving cases. There should be objective analysis of each case and if the circumstances stated by the employees deserve special treatment, such cases are required to be considered sympathetically and discretion is required to be exercised in a appropriate deserving cases. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances as it emerges from the material on record, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case wherein compassionate pension is required to be granted and hence the order passed by the respondents-authorities (at Annexure-F) is ordered to be quashed and set aside. The respondents authorities are directed to grant the compassionate pension with effect from 21.03.2002 and pay the arrears thereof within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment and order. The amount of gratuity shall also be released along with the statutory interest within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment and order. 10. In view of the above observations and directions, the present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.