Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 129 (GUJ)

Dhanjibhai Bhikhabhai Gohel v. State Of Gujarat

2024-01-17

NIKHIL S.KARIEL

body2024
ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mahendra Vora on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi on behalf of respondent – State and learned advocate Mr.Hemang Shah on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges decision on the part of the respondents dated 03.08.2011 whereby the respondents have refused to grant pension to the petitioner. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vora on behalf of the petitioner who would submit that the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as a senior clerk in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar and whereas, pursuant to a departmental proceedings the petitioner had been dismissed from service. 3.1. It would appear that thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an appeal and whereas in the appeal, the matter had been remanded back to the disciplinary authority since copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. It would appear that the petitioner had thereafter been given appropriate opportunity and whereas, the disciplinary authority had imposed penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. It would appear that the said order of compulsory retirement had been confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority whereas the order of compulsory retirement being dated 31.01.1992 and the order of the appellate authority being dated 07.08.1992. 3.2. Learned advocate would submit that the said orders had been challenged before this Court by the present petitioner by preferring Special Civil Application No.2253/1993 and whereas, vide decision dated 13.11.1997 a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had been pleased to reject the petition preferred by the present petitioner. Learned advocate would submit that though the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the decision of the learned Coordinate Bench, since the same had been preferred after an inordinate delay, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.02.2020 had been pleased to reject the application for condoning delay, resulting in the appeal also getting disposed of. 3.3. Learned advocate would submit that the petitioner had thereafter preferred an application before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar seeking for grant of compassionate pension and vide an order dated 03.08.2011, the same had been rejected and whereas, it is the said order which is challenged before this Court by way of the present petition. 3.4. 3.3. Learned advocate would submit that the petitioner had thereafter preferred an application before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar seeking for grant of compassionate pension and vide an order dated 03.08.2011, the same had been rejected and whereas, it is the said order which is challenged before this Court by way of the present petition. 3.4. Learned advocate Mr.Vora would submit that upon an employee being retired on compulsory basis as punishment, the employee is entitled to seek for compassionate pension and whereas, the respondents having not considered the same, this Court may interject and may direct the respondents to grant compassionate pension to the present petitioner. Learned advocate would further submit that as such, the petitioner as of now is an aged person having no source of livelihood and whereas, the petitioner is also shouldering responsibility of his family members and even on such grounds, the respondents ought to have considered the case of compassionate pension. 4. This petition is vehemently objected to by learned advocate Mr.Hemang Shah on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3. Learned advocate Mr.Shah would draw the attention of this Court to the decision by the respondents at the relevant point of time after the petitioner being compulsory retired whereby his request for grant of compassionate pension had been rejected. 4.1. Learned advocate would submit that since the charges leveled against the petitioner were very serious and whereas they were held to be proved and whereas since it would appear that the High Court on judicial side had also made certain observations against the petitioner, therefore, the respondent no.2 had thought it appropriate not to grant compassionate pension to the petitioner. 4.2. Learned advocate would submit that the said decision had been taken as far as back in the year 1998 more particularly upon an application by the present petitioner and whereas, the petitioner had repeated such applications which had resulted in passing of impugned order dated 03.08.2011 whereby the petitioner had been informed of his application being rejected earlier. Learned advocate would submit that since the respondents have clearly applied their mind to the issue in question and since there is no inherent vested right available for an employee to claim payment of compassionate pension, thus, the request of the petitioner may not be considered by this Court. 5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties who have not submitted anything else. 5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties who have not submitted anything else. 6. At the outset, it requires to be mentioned that the grant of compassionate pension is governed under Rules 77 and 78 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. It requires mention here that the said rules are pari materia to Rule 282(B)(1)(a) and Rule 301(2) of the BCS Rules under which the case of the petitioner has been considered. Rules 77 and 78 of the present Rules are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:- “77. Grant of Compassionate Pension: (1) A Government employee who is removed or required to retire from Government service for misconduct or insolvency shall be granted no pension other than a Compassionate Pension. (2) A Government employee 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 is not eligible for a Retiring or Superannuation pension he shall be granted no pension other than a Compassionate Pension. 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.” 7. Considering the said Rules, it would appear that Rule 78 inter alia states about an employee who is removed or compulsory retired from government service being entitled to no pension other than a compassionate pension. Rule 78 further states about the employee being entitled to be considered for compassionate pension even if he is removed on the grounds of inefficiency. Considering the rules, it would appear that for grant of compassionate pension, a case deserving consideration for special treatment has to be made out. 7.1. Upon hearing learned advocates and having appreciated the documents, it clearly appears that no case for being accorded special treatment had been made out by the petitioner. 7.2. Considering the rules, it would appear that for grant of compassionate pension, a case deserving consideration for special treatment has to be made out. 7.1. Upon hearing learned advocates and having appreciated the documents, it clearly appears that no case for being accorded special treatment had been made out by the petitioner. 7.2. With regard to the above observation, it would appear that the petitioner who, at the relevant point of time, had put in approximately more than 20 years of service, had been issued with a charge-sheet in the year 1987 inter alia alleging disposing of muddamal for personal gain, falsification of court record, destruction of court record, procuring confidential communication in surreptitious manner, negligence in maintaining record and bringing undue pressure and administering threats to superior authority and of using oppressive language. 7.3. It would appear that the charges against the petitioner had been proved. It would appear that while at the first instance the petitioner had been imposed with punishment of dismissal from service, upon reconsideration, the said punishment had been converted into a punishment of compulsory retirement from service. In this regard, it would appear that the respondent no.3 had considered the case of the petitioner in detail and has also found that while the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the order of compulsory retirement, the learned Coordinate Bench while deciding the petition has also observed that the petitioner had disposed of the muddamal articles for personal gain by forging the name of the concerned judge in the documents. It would also be relevant to mention that though the learned Coordinate Bench has observed that forgery was not a charge imputed against the petitioner, yet, it is proved that the petitioner has added certain articles of muddamal after the order was made. The respondent no.3 had also taken note of the fact that this Court on judicial side had found that the petitioner had destroyed court record and was using oppressive language and had administered threats to the disciplinary authority. The learned Coordinate Bench, as it appears, has also observed that for administering threats repeatedly, the petitioner has also been issued with the punishment of censure. 7.4. The learned Coordinate Bench, as it appears, has also observed that for administering threats repeatedly, the petitioner has also been issued with the punishment of censure. 7.4. The respondent no.3 having considered the said relevant aspects and having come to a conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate pension, in the considered opinion of this Court, no interference would be required more particularly since it clearly appears that no case for special treatment was made out. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, since it does not appear that an employee who has been compulsory retired from service has a vested right to seek for compassionate pension and whereas, since the grant of compassionate pension is at the discretion of the disciplinary authority more particularly upon coming to a conclusion that the case deserves special treatment whereas in the instant case, since it appears that the authority having carefully considered the charges leveled against the petitioner and the observations by this Court in the petition whereby the order of compulsory retirement had been challenged, has found it appropriate not to accede to the request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate pension. 9. This Court finds that the discretion has been exercised appropriately since no case for special treatment is found by the respondent authorities and whereas in the considered opinion of this Court, no interference, as sought for, is required. Hence, the present petition stands disposed of as rejected.