Facts
The petitioner’s father, a government servant, died in holster on 29.12.1998
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 02.08.2004 and was subsequently appointed as Talati-cum-Mantri/Panchayat Sahayak on 25.01.2006
Source reference: p. 2He was placed in the regular pay scale on 13.12.2011
Source reference: p. 2The State Government introduced a New Pension Scheme (NPS) effective from 01.04.2005.
Source reference: no citationThe petitioner challenged a communication dated 08.08.2025 denying him the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) and a corrective instruction dated 24.07.2025 directing the closure of GPF accounts for post-2005 appointees
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner sought a modification of Government Resolution (GR) dated 08.11.2024 to extend OPS benefits to compassionate appointees
Source reference: p. 2Issues
Whether a person appointed on compassionate grounds after 01.04.2005 is entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme under the Government Resolution dated 08.11.2024
Source reference: p. 5-6 / para. 7-8Whether the Court can modify a policy decision (GR dated 08.11.2024) to include categories of employees not originally contemplated by the State Government
Source reference: p. 7-8 / para. 9Law Applied
The Court relied on the recruitment criteria established in the Government Resolution dated 08.11.2024, which limits OPS benefits to those appointed on fixed pay prior to 01.04.2005 or those whose recruitment process concluded before that date but joined later due to administrative or legal delays
Source reference: p. 5-6The Court further applied the principle of judicial restraint regarding policy matters, as established in *Jignaben Jigneshbhai Thaker v. District Development Officer* (SCA No. 316 of 2026) and *Titiksha Mahendrakumar Dave v. State of Gujarat* (SCA No. 1302 of 2026), holding that Courts should not interfere with executive policy unless it is perverse, lacks a nexus with its objective, or is against public interest
Source reference: p. 4, 7-8Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria stipulated in the GR dated 08.11.2024 because his appointment occurred in 2006, well after the 01.04.2005 cutoff for the New Pension Scheme
Source reference: p. 5-6Following the precedents in *Jignaben* and *Titiksha*, the Court reasoned that compassionate appointments form a distinct category not included in the specific relief provided by the GR for competitive exam candidates
Source reference: para. 8.1The Court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the closure of GPF accounts of other post-2005 employees, noting that the State’s "Sudhara Hukkam" (corrective order) dated 24.07.2025 was a valid exercise of administrative power to rectify errors where OPS was wrongly granted
Source reference: p. 8-9The Court emphasized that since the petitioner was appointed nine years after the CPF/NPS scheme was introduced, there was no legal basis to grant him OPS benefits
Source reference: para. 9Holding
The Court answered both issues in the negative, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the Old Pension Scheme as his appointment was post-01.04.2005 and compassionate appointments are not covered by the GR dated 08.11.2024
The Court refused to modify the state policy and dismissed the Special Civil Application
Source reference: para. 12Original Court PDF
Neel Rameshchandra Patel v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. [R/Special Civil Application No. 433 of 2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in