[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Patel Chiragkumar Ramniklal vs State Of Gujarat on 24 March, 2026
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/798/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 798 of 2026
==========================================================
PATEL CHIRAGKUMAR RAMNIKLAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HENIL SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3
MR RB THAKOR(6743) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 24/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rohan Majmudar for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Henil Shah for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed
for quashing and setting aside the action of respondent
authorities of not applying old pension scheme to the
petitioner and has further prayed for a direction to the
authority to apply old pension scheme in the case of the
petitioner and further direction to authorities to open a GPF
account of the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed
for quashing and setting aside a communication dated
08.08.2025 issued by respondent No. 4 whereby the
petitioner was denied the benefit of old pension scheme. The
petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/798/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
the communication dated 24.07.2025 whereby the
respondents have issued instructions that in case any of the
persons who was appointed after 01.04.2025 and yet if his
GPF account is opened then in that case such GPF account
is required to be closed. Thereafter, the petitioner has
further prayed for seeking modification in the Government
Resolution dated 08.11.2024 to the extend that the benefit
of the said Government Resolution be made applicable in
case of petitioner who is appointed on compassionate basis.
Lastly, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the
authorities to consider and decide the representation made
by the petitioner in light of Government Resolution dated
08.11.2024.
3. It is case of the petitioner as submitted by learned
advocate Mr. Rohan Majmudar for the petitioner that the
father of the petitioner expired on 18.06.2002 while he was
in service and therefore the petitioner made an application
for compassionate appointment on 10.07.2002 which was
favourably considered and the petitioner was granted
appointment vide order dated 04.06.2005 (25.08.2005) as
Talati-cum-Mantri / Panchayat Sahayak. Initially, the
appointment of the petitioner was on fixed pay and on
31.08.2010 the petitioner was placed into regular pay sale
and thereafter since the new pension scheme is applied to
the petitioner and considering the fact that subsequently
vide Government Resolution dated 08.11.2024 it was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/798/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
resolved by the State Government that in case of competitive
exams when the entire recruitment process was over prior
01.04.2005 but appointments was given post 01.04.2005.
The candidates who are appointed after 01.04.2005 be
granted the benefits of old pension scheme, the petitioner is
seeking benefit of the said Government Resolution by
seeking modification in the said Government Resolution .
4. Learned advocate Mr. Rohan Majmudar appearing for the
petitioner has made following submissions:-
4.1 That the petitioner is victim of circumstances and
though the father of the petitioner died in the year 1998 and
the petitioner had made an application for compassionate
appointment way back in the year 2002 and was appointed
only in the year 2005 and in between the new pension
scheme had come into force w.e.f. 01.04.2005 and therefore
the benefit of Government Resolution dated 08.11.2024 is
required to be extended to the petitioner by modifying the
Government Resolution.
4.2 That the petitioner made an application for
compassionate appointment in the year 2002 itself and
therefore, whatever delay had occurred in appointing the
petitioner can be attributed to the respondent and therefore
the petitioner should be granted the benefit of old pension
scheme.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/798/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
4.3 That in some of the District, some of the persons who
were appointed even after 01.04.2005 on compassionate
grounds are also given the benefit of old pension scheme
and therefore, the case of the petitioner is required to be
considered in the same manner.
Except the above submissions, no other submissions were
made by learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Henil Shah
appearing for the state submitted that the issue on hand is
squarely covered by two recent decisions of this Court (i) in
the case of Jignaben Jigneshbhai Thaker v. District
Development Officer, Surendranagar and Ors., Special Civil
Application No. 316 of 2026, decided on 29.01.2026 and (ii)
in the case of Titiksha Mahendrakumar Dave v. State of
Gujarat and Ors., Special Civil Application No. 1302 of
2026, decided on 19.02.2026.
5.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Shah
submitted that in the case of Jignaben Jigneshbhai Thaker
(Supra) the challenge of the petitioner was to extend the
benefit of Government Resolution dated 08.11.2024 and the
same was dismissed by this Court by passing a reasoned
order and by holding that such Government Resolution
cannot be modified the way it suits the case of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/798/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
petitioner.
5.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Shah further
submitted that in the case of Titiksha Mahendrakumar
Dave (supra), the challenge was of similar nature whereby
the petitioner had prayed for grant of benefit of old pension
scheme and that petition was also dismissed by this Court
by taking into consideration the decision in the case of
Jignaben Jigneshbhai Thaker (Supra) and by making some
additional observations as well and therefore learned AGP
Mr. Shah submitted that this petition also requires to be
dismissed.
6.I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and perused the records. Considering the fact that the issue
under challenge has already been considered by this Court
in two different decisions as referred hereinabove relied
upon by learned AGP Mr. Henil Shah for respondent Nos. 1
to 3, the Court has considered the present challenge of the
present petitioner in light of above decisions.
7. In the instant case, the petitioner's appointment was
admittedly after 01.04.2005 though the father of the
petitioner died in the year 1998, the application for
compassionate appointment was preferred in the year 2004
and therefore the observations made by this Court in the
case of Titiksha Mahendrakumar Dave (supra) in Paragraph
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/798/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
Nos. 7 and 8 are required to be considered which are as
under:-
"7. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and perused the record. I have also considered the
Government Resolution dated 08.11.2024, which is the sole
basis on which the petitioner claims the benefit of the Old
Pension Scheme.
7.1. On perusal of the said Government Resolution, this
Court finds that it is categorically stated therein that the
Resolution would be applicable only in cases where an
employee was appointed on fixed pay prior to 01.04.2005, or
where a person, though appointed after 01.04.2005, had
undergone a recruitment process which was completed prior
to 01.04.2005. Therefore, it is only in such cases that the
benefit of the Old Pension Scheme has been extended to the
employees under the said Government Resolution.
8. A further perusal of the Government Resolution dated
08.11.2024 indicates that nowhere does it provide that a
person appointed on compassionate grounds would be
entitled to the benefit of the said GR. The said Government
Resolution further specifically provides that it would also
apply to cases where the matter was sub judice before the
competent Court and, on account of the pendency of such
proceedings, the appointment could not be made prior to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/798/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
01.04.2005.
8.1. In the present case, the petitioner does not satisfy any of
the criteria stipulated in the aforesaid Government
Resolution. Moreover, her appointment is also of a nature of
compassionate grounds, which category is not included
within the ambit of the Government Resolution dated
08.11.2024. Therefore, there is no question of applicability of
the said Government Resolution to the facts of the present
case."
8. As far as the petitioner's challenge to the Government
Resolution dated 08.11.2024 is concerned, the same was
subject matter of challenge in the case of Jignaben
Jigneshbhai Thaker (Supra) wherein the Court in Paragraph
No. 5.2 observed as under:-
"5.2 Insofar as, GRs dated 08.11.2024 and 16.04.2025 are
concerned, learned AGP, Mr. Tanna, submitted that those
GRs are published by the State Government and are part of
policy matters of the State, whereby, the State Government
has formed a policy and has decided to grant the benefit of
GPF scheme to the class of the employees, in whose case, the
recruitment process got over prior to 31.03.2005, but, who
could be given appointment only after 01.04.2005. It was
submitted that such a policy decision is taken by the State
Government after due deliberation and therefore, this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/798/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
may not interfere with the same in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is
found to be not in consonance with the objectives for which
such a decision is taken or such a policy decision is adverse
to the interest of the people at large. It was, therefore,
prayed that on the fact as well as on the ground of law, with
regard to interference by the Courts in policy decision, this
petition be dismissed."
9. Considering the fact that the Government Resolution
reflects a policy decision, in Paragraph No. 6.1 of the said
decision, the Court observed as under:
"6.1 Insofar as the prayer made by the petitioner with
regard to inclusion of the cases in the GRs dated 08.11.2024
and 16.04.2025 is concerned, these GRs are published by the
State Government after due deliberation, as a policy
decision. It is well-settled that unless a policy decision is
found to be absolutely perverse or there is no nexus between
the policy decision and the objects sought to be achieved
through it or the same is found to be contrary to the public
interest, the Courts should refrain itself from interfering with
a policy decision and therefore, I do not see any reason to
issue any direction to include the case like the present
petitioner in the above GRs. Even otherwise, when the date
of appointment of the petitioner is 30.06.2014, i.e. almost
nine years after the GPF scheme was discontinued and CPF
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/798/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
scheme was introduced, I do not see any special reason to
consider the case of the petitioner for grant of the benefit of
GPF scheme."
10. The aforesaid observations made by this Court in both
the decisions would squarely cover the issue on hand.
11. There is one additional submission made by learned
advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner to the effect that
some of the persons who were appointed after 01.04.2005
have already availed the benefits of old pension scheme as
their GPF account has been opened in respect of old
pension scheme. However, such contention is required to be
rejected out-rightly for the reason that thereafter,
immediately the State Government has preferred a
corrective order on 24.07.2025 which is also under
challenge by way of this petition whereby the State
Government has taken a decision that in case a person is
appointed after 01.04.2005 and yet his GPF account is open
such GPF accounts are required to be closed. Therefore, the
State Government has immediately acted in respect of
persons whose GPF accounts are opened despite their
appointment was post 01.04.2005. Further, the petitioner's
challenge to order dated 24.07.2025 would not survive
simply for the reason that as the petitioner is not the
beneficiary of old pension scheme and the corrective order
(Sudhara Hukkam) dated 24.07.2025 states about closing of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/798/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
GPF account in case if a person has wrongly availed the old
pension scheme and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said
to be the beneficiary of the old pension scheme and hence
the petitioner cannot be termed as an aggrieved party of the
order dated 24.07.2025 as the said order will not affect
adversely to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner's
submission that the petitioner is required to be treated
equally since some of the persons have already availed the
benefits of old pension scheme despite the fact that their
appointment was after 01.04.2005. Therefore in view of the
corrective order (Sudhara Hukkam) such submission also
would not stand.
12. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the
present petition fails. The same is required to be dismissed
and is hereby dismissed.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
UMESH/-
