Gujarat High Court
Falguniben Mafatbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21962/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21962 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
FALGUNIBEN MAFATBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH
MS. ADITI S RAOL(8128) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. FORUM SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
REFUSED SERVED (N)(10) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 13/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Forum Shah waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents- State.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 14 00:58:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21962/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined learned advocate Ms. Aditi Raol for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Forum Shah for the respondents-State.
4. The present writ petition is filed under Article 14, 16 & 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief :-
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned decision dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Director, office of the Commissioner of Schools, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for pension and other terminal benefits under rules 77 to 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to sanction and release pension and other terminal benefits to the petitioner under rules 77 to 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002;
(C) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release provisional compassionate pension to the petitioner with immediate effect; and (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other appropriate order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice."
5. The short facts of the present writ petition appears to be that the petitioner was appointed as a Assistant Teacher in one Pallavi Vidhyalay in the year 1990 but having found that degree certificate of B.Ed. obtained by the petitioner from the concerned University is found to be fake inasmuch Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 14 00:58:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21962/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined as no such University in existence, vide order dated 06.02.2008 issued by the Management of said Pallavi Vidhyalay, services of the petitioner terminated, whereby, the petitioner was removed from services as a Teacher.
5.1 The petitioner appears to have challenged such decision before the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal by way of an application being application No. 27 of 2008, which came to be rejected by the Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 14th July, 2010.
5.2 So, the petitioner herein appears to have challenged the aforesaid judgment / order of Tribunal before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 18455 of 2011, which also met with similar fate as Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment / order dated 10.04.2019 dismissed the aforesaid writ petition.
5.3 It further appears that petitioner herein preferred one MCA (for clarification) No. 1 of 2019 in the aforesaid writ petition, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 08.08.2019, granted liberty in favour of the petitioner to approach respondents by giving clarification, which reads as under :-
"4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the prayers made in the Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 14 00:58:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21962/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined present application seeking consequential benefits of termination ware not the subject matter before this Court. However, it is clarified that it will be open for the present applicant to make representation before the authorities claiming the benefits as referred in para7 of the application such as General Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment and fixing of pension for 17 years of service rendered by her. The respondent authority shall decide the representation made by the applicant in accordance with law. The applicant shall make the representation within a period of two weeks from today and the respondent authorities are hereby directed to decide the same within a period of six weeks on receipt of such representation made by the applicant."
5.4 Thus, in view of the aforesaid clarificatory order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, petitioner by way of an application dated 20th August, 2019 approached the respondent authority to get compassionate pension.
5.5 After considering the case of the petitioner and giving opportunity of hearing, the respondent authority vide its impugned order dated 04.10.2019 rejected the request of the petitioner to grant any such compassionate pension. While rejecting such request of the petitioner, respondent authority observed that as petitioner dismissed from service, no such benefit can be granted as per Rule 77 & 78 of Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Pension Rules, 2002'). Hence, the present writ petition.
6. Learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Ms. Aditi Raol for the petitioner would submit that Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 14 00:58:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21962/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined the impugned order is ex-facie erroneous, perverse and contrary to the record of the case, requires to be quashed and set aside. It is respectfully submitted that as per order dated 06.02.2008, whereby services of the petitioner discontinued/ terminated by the School Officials, no-where it has been whispered that petitioner is dismissed from her services.
6.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. Mehta would further submit that the order of termination served upon the petitioner also suggests that prior to passing of such order, proposal was sent by the School concerned to District Education Officer, Ahmedabad who also gave his approval vide its order dated 05.02.2008, thereafter, the aforesaid order dated 06.02.2008 served upon the petitioner. It is submitted that as per order of termination dated 06.02.2008, it is only mentioned that with effect from 07.02.2008, petitioner was removed from her services.
6.2 Learned senior advocate Mr. Mehta would further submit that as per Rule 77 & 78 of Pension Rules, 2002, if the Government employee is removed or required to retire from service for any misconduct etc., in that eventuality, entitle to receive compassionate pension. It is submitted that when petitioner removed from services and not dismissed from Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 14 00:58:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21962/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined her services, as per said Rules, 2002, she entitled to receive compassionate pension, which is wrongly denied to her by the respondent authority.
6.3 Learned senior advocate Mr. Mehta would respectfully submit that the impugned decision is found to be erroneous one and without taking into account, the order of termination in its proper prospective, the respondent authority has committed serious error in law by denying legitimate right of petitioner to get compassionate pension.
6.4 Making the above submission, learned senior advocate Mr. Mehta would request this Court to allow the present writ petition.
7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Forum Shah would submit that when the degree obtained by the petitioner found to be fake and dismissed from her services, not entitled to receive any pension including compassionate pension as claimed.
7.1 Learned AGP Ms. Shah would further submit that there is no error on the part of the respondent authority in rejecting the claim of the petitioner by observing that petitioner is dismissed from her services. It is submitted that Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 14 00:58:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21962/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined when the petitioner was unsuccessful in her attempt to get any relief either from Tribunal or this Court against her termination, no further benefit can be granted to her as claimed.
7.2 Learned AGP Ms. Shah would respectfully submit that all throughout, the petitioner maintained the stand that she was dismissed from services being terminated, later in point of time, she cannot allow to take shelter of Rule 77 & 78 of Pension Rules, 2002.
7.3 So, according to learned AGP, there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner and the present writ petition be dismissed.
8. No other and further submissions have been made by the learned advocates for the respective parties.
9. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and after going through all aforesaid orders including the impugned order, it appears from baring reading of petitioner's termination order that petitioner was never dismissed from services, rather she was removed from her services prior to reaching the age of her superannuation. The order of her removal from services dated 06.02.2008 passed Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 14 00:58:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21962/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined by the officials of Pallavi School, where she worked as an Assistant Teacher clearly suggests that petitioner was removed from services and not dismissed from services.
10. In normal parlance, one may consider such order as dismissal from service but considering the Pension Rules, 2002 and as such there is a vast difference between the term dismissal/ removal/ compulsory retirement etc., respondent authority cannot allow to treat said order dated 06.02.2008 as dismissal order.
11. It is also required to take note of the fact that prior to passing of order dated 06.02.2008, a proposal was also sent to District Education Officer, Ahmedabad by the school concerned, whereby vide its order dated 05.02.2008 passed by the District Education Officer, Ahmedabad, who took conscious decision, that the petitioner be removed immediately from her services by terminating her services with immediate effect, thus, given his approval to that effect. The copy of the aforesaid order dated 05.02.2008 passed by the District Education Officer, Ahmedabad is tendered by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. Forum Shah during the course of her argument, which is taken on record.
Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 14 00:58:02 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21962/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined
12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reasons and so also the order dated 05.02.2008 of District Education Officer, Ahemdabad and also termination order dated 06.02.2008 passed by the Management of Pallavi Vidhyalay, wherein the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher clearly suggests that she was never dismissed from her services but removed from her services w.e.f. 07.02.2008.
13. If that be so, finding so recorded by the respondent authority in its impugned order dated 04.10.2019 that petitioner having dismissed from her services not entitle to receive any pensionary benefit as claimed, is nothing but an erroneous observation and perverse finding on the part of the respondent authority, cannot allow to stand in law.
14. The Rule 77 & 78 of Pension Rules, 2002 would suggests that in a case of Government employee who removed or required to retire from services for any reason, shall be granted compassionate pension, if the Government so think fit that case is deserving to grant a special treatment, then, sanction to grant such employee a compassionate pension.
15. In light of aforesaid reasons, when the petitioner was removed from her services and not dismissed, her case is Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 14 00:58:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21962/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined requires to be considered by the respondent authority keeping in mind Rule 77 & 78 of Pension Rules, 2002, as petitioner would entitle to claim such compassionate pension being removed from her services.
16. As a fortiori, the impugned order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Director, office of the Commissioner of Schools, rejecting the claim of the petitioner to get compassionate pension as per Rules 77 to 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, is hereby quashed and set aside.
17. In view of foregoing reasons, the matter is remanded back to the aforesaid respondent authority to re-consider the case of the petitioner for granting any benefit as per Rule Rules 77 to 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, by considering the fact that the petitioner was removed from her services and not dismissed for her services.
17.1 Such decision be taken by the respondent authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and requires to pass a fresh order with citing its reasons in case of any denial of such benefit. Otherwise, if case of petitioner found deserving by respondent authority, Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 14 00:58:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21962/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined requisite benefits be paid to petitioner within reasonable time with arrears, if any.
17.2 Let concern respondent authority shall complete such exercises on or before 31st March, 2026 and passed its reasons order, by serving the copy of its order to the petitioner.
18. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) SALIM/ Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 14 00:58:02 IST 2025