Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs L.L. Sharma on 17 February, 2025
1 WP-17880-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 17880 of 2022
(UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs L.L. SHARMA AND OTHERS )
Dated : 17-02-2025
Shri Pushpendra Yadav - Senior Advocate with Shri Sandeep
K.Shukla - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sapan Usrethe - Advocate for respondent no.1.
Shri Vijay Tripathi and Samveg Tripathi - Advocates for respondent
no.2.
Petitioners impugn order dated 4.5.2022 whereby the Central
Administrative Tribunal, while interpreting Office Memorandum dated
12.5.2017 in respect of grant of additional pension on attaining a particular
age, has interpreted the expression from 80 years to be 79 years and one day
i.e. on an employee entering the age of 80 years.
Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the Tribunal has erred in
not noticing that such an interpretation would be irreconcilable in case the
following entries of age were to be considered. It is pointed out that the table
mentions "from 80 years to less than 85 years" and "from 85 years to less
than 90 years", "from 90 years to less than 95 years" and so on. He submits
that if the expression "from 80 years" were to be interpreted as "79 years
and one day", then "from 85 years" would have to be interpreted as "84 years
and one day", which would be the contrary to the expression "less than 85
years", which would include all ages up to 84 years 11 months and 30/31
days, as the case may be.
2 WP-17880-2022
We note that the Tribunal has relied on a decision of Division Bench
of Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani Vs. Union of India and
others, reported in 2018 SCC Online Gau 1501.
Reliance is also placed by learned counsel for respondents on a
judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Justice (Retd.) Shambhu
Singh Vs. Union of India and others, reported in ILR 2020 MP 2804 wherein
a similar interpretation has been given.
Single Bench of this Court in R.N.Gutch Vs. M.P.M.K.V.V.Co.Ltd.
and others reported in 2025 SCC Online MP 221 has upheld the decision of
employer to extend the benefit of additional 20% pension after completing
the age of 80 years by holding that in the case of Virendra Dutt Gyani
(supra) the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court was considering Section
17B of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions
of Service) Amendment Act, 2009. However, in the Circular issued by
Government of M.P., Finance Department on 3.8.2009 the word "from" is
missing and, therefore, judgment delivered in the matter of Virendra Dutt
Gyani (supra) is not applicable to the cases of civil servants.
Another Single Bench of this Court extended the benefit to the
petitioner therein in W.P.No.7424/2022 (Om Prakash Saxena Vs. State of
M.P. and others) wherein the learned Single Judge has relied upon the
judgment delivered by Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in the case
o f Virendra Dutt Gyani (supra) and in the case of Justice (Retd.) Shambhu
Singh (supra) and held that the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit.
It is brought to the knowledge of the Court that the Single Benches of
3 WP-17880-2022
this Court are adopting contrary views in interpreting the expression "from
80 years to less than 85 years".
Keeping in view the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
petitioners, we are of the view that the judgment in the case of Justice (Retd.)
Shambhu Singh (supra) needs to be considered by a Larger Bench of this
Court.
Accordingly, we request the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a
Larger Bench to consider the following question :-
"As to whether the expression "from 80 years to less than 85
years" would include ages 79 years one day to 84 years or 80
years and one day to 84 years 11 months 30/31 days, as the case
may be."
Interim relief to continue till next date of listing.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
TG /-
