Authority must exercise discretion reasonably and consider special circumstances when deciding claims for compassionate pension.

The petitioner served for over 27 years before being inflicted with the major penalty of compulsory retirement on August 26, 2010.

This punishment was upheld by the High Court in a previous petition (SCA No. 1761 of 2016).

The petitioner subsequently applied for "compassionate pension" under the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, citing financial distress and family dependency.

The respondent authorities rejected his claim via communications dated 31.08.2012, 19.12.2012, and 16.06.2017, primarily on the grounds that the nature of his misconduct leading to compulsory retirement was serious.

The petitioner challenged these rejections under Article 226, arguing that the authorities failed to exercise the discretion provided under the Rules.

Whether the respondent authorities erred in law by rejecting the claim for compassionate pension solely based on the nature of the penalty without considering the specific criteria under the Pension Rules.

Whether the discretionary power to grant compassionate pension requires a reasoned order considering the "special circumstances" of the delinquent employee.

The Court primarily applied Rules 77, 78, and 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002.

Rule 77 stipulates that a removed or retired employee is eligible for no pension other than a "Compassionate Pension".

Rule 78 provides that the Government may sanction such pension in "deserving cases of special treatment" for employees removed for misconduct.

Rule 79 dictates the quantum of such pension.

The Court further relied on the precedent in Arjunbhai Naranbhai Bhatiya v. Dy. Police Commissioner (SCA No. 22956 of 2006), which established that authorities must execute an objective analysis of family circumstances and provide reasoned orders when exercising discretionary powers under these Rules.

The Court observed that while Rule 78 vests discretionary power in the State, such discretion must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily.

It found that the respondent authorities rejected the petitioner's claim through non-speaking orders that failed to mention or discuss Rules 77-79.

The Court reasoned that the nature of the punishment (compulsory retirement) cannot be the sole basis for rejection, as the Rules specifically contemplate compassionate pension for those punished for misconduct.

By failing to consider the petitioner’s 27 years of service and his recorded "special circumstances," the authorities committed a miscarriage of justice.

The Court emphasized that "special treatment" requires an evaluation of the employee's needs and family condition, which was entirely absent in the impugned orders.

It held that the authorities must pass reasoned orders after considering the statutory framework.

The matter was remanded to the Collector, Gir-Somnath (Respondent No. 3), with directions to reconsider the petitioner's claim in light of Rules 77-79 of the 2002 Rules.

The Respondent was ordered to afford the petitioner a hearing and decide the claim via a reasoned order within two months.

No opinion was expressed on the merits of the petitioner's claim.