Gujarat High Court
Legal Heir Of Bhikhubhai Prabhatsinh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 21 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8727/2016 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8727 of 2016
=============================================
LEGAL HEIR OF BHIKHUBHAI PRABHATSINH GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. VISHAL P THAKKER(7079) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR FORUM SHAH, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No.1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 21/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vishal P. Thakker for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader
Ms.Forum Shah for the respondents.
2. It has been submitted by learned advocate Mr. Thakker
that despite representation made by the petitioner being
widow lady on 03.03.2010 to the respondents to consider her
case for granting pensionary benefits due to the death of her
husband on 28.04.1972, there is no response from the
respondents and as such, no reply has been filed in this
matter.
2.1 Learned advocate Mr.Thakker was candid in his
submission that the present petition is filed after a lapse of a
considerable long period of time, but it is settled law that
getting pension is a fundamental right as it is not a bounty
and there would be a continuous cause of action. So, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8727/2016 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
advocate Mr. Thakkar requests this Court that appropriate
directions may be issued to the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for pension.
2.2 In support of his submissions, learned Advocate
Mr.Vishal P. Thakkar relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Mastan Bee vs. General
Manager, South Central Railway and another - (2003) 1
SCC 184.
3. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader
Ms.Forum Shah would submit that as per her instructions, the
husband of the petitioner, having served as a work-charge
watchman only for 12 years, would not be entitled to receive
any pensionary benefits by the petitioner. Nonetheless, she
was also candid in her submission regarding the
representation made by the petitioner as well as non-filing of
reply in this matter.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties, without much delving into the matter, at this stage,
this Court would like to dispose of this petition by passing the
following order and observations :
(i) The respondents herein are directed to decide the
case of the petitioner in turn decide her representation
dated 03.03.2010 (Annexure-C), issued through her
lawyer, in accordance with law within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8727/2016 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
(ii) It is also open for the petitioner to file a fresh
representation along with any case law whereby the
petitioner can impress upon the respondents to take an
appropriate decision in the matter. Once such fresh
representation is also received from the petitioner,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to consider
and decide both the representations within the time
stipulated hereinabove and thereby pass an appropriate
reasoned order, either accepting or rejecting such
representation.
(iii) At last, it goes without saying that as there is
already delay in deciding the case of the petitioner at the
end of the respondents, it is expected from the
respondents that as per the prevailing law as on date,
appropriate decisions shall be taken by the respondents
within the stipulated time as aforesaid.
(iv) It is made clear that as such, there is a substantial
delay in preferring the present petition, at the same
time, this Court is not handicapped when the case of the
petitioner who is claiming family pension. At the same
time, if the respondent State finds the case of the
petitioner eligible to receive family pension, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, at
the time of paying the arrears of such family pension,
the petitioner shall not claim and be entitled to receive
any interest thereon.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8727/2016 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
(v) Before parting, it is made clear that this Court has
neither gone into nor examined the merits of the matter
which requires to be considered by the respondents in
accordance with law.
5. In light of what is stated hereinabove, the present
petition is partly-allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the
aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
6. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
