Anant Narayan Bhatt vs General Manager
2025 Latest Caselaw 1133 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anant Narayan Bhatt vs General Manager on 4 July, 2025

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16694




                                                                1                         WP-22571-2025
                             IN        THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                         BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                                            &
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                                     ON THE 4 th OF JULY, 2025
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 22571 of 2025
                                                    ANANT NARAYAN BHATT
                                                           Versus
                                                      GENERAL MANAGER
                          Appearance:
                             Shri Prasanna J.Mehta - Advocate for the petitioner


                                                                    ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

Petitioner has filed this present petition challenging the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (Circuit Sittings:Indore) in Original Application No. 201/723/2022 whereby the application of the petitioner claiming additional pension at the rate of 20% of the basic pension upon entering into the age of 80 years has been

dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Guahati High Court in case of Virendra Dutt Gyani v/s Union of India & 5 Ors., 2021 (4) SCT 429 has explained the words 'from 80 years ' which means entering into the age slab of 80 years to less than 85 years. In support of his contention, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in case of Justice

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16694

2 WP-22571-2025

(Rtd.) Shambhu Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition No. 13291/2020 dated 03.12.2020.

3. In the case of Virendra Dutt Gyani (supra), the Guahati High Court has given interpretation to the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (Amendment Act, 2009) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1954') applicable to the High Court Judges at the relevant point of time. Whereas, the service condition of the petitioner being a pensioner are governed by the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1993'). The learned Tribunal has highlighted the importance of Rule 69(2A) of the Rules of 1993 in paragraph 10 of the impugned order which is reproduced below :

''10. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, Rules 69(2A) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules also is very important, which reads thus ;

(2A) In addition to pension admissible in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2), after completion of eighty years of age and above, the additional pension shall be payable to a retired railway servant in the following manner, namely:--

S.No. Age of Pensioner Additional Pension

1. From 80 years to less than 85 years 20 per cent of basic pension

2. From 85 years to less than 90 years 30 per cent of basis pension

3. From 90 years to less than 95 years 40 per cent of basic pension

4. From 95 years to less than 100 years 50 per cent of basic pension

5. 100 years or more 100 per cent of basic pension

4. Rule 69(2A) provides that, 'In addition to pension admissible in accordance with the provision of sub rule (2) after completion of eighty years of age and above.......'' Therefore, the Rule 2A clearly stipulates that the additional pension will be granted after completion of 80 years. As per the table annexed thereto 20% additional pension shall be payable from 80 years

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16694

3 WP-22571-2025 to less than 85 years. However, the DoP&PW has issued clarification dated 03.10.2008 which has been adopted by the Railway Board vide circular dated 08.10.2008 and has appended clarification below the said Rule that the pensioner/family pensioner whose date of birth is 01.08.2008 will also be entitled to additional pension/family pension w.e.f. 01.08.2008 on attaining the age of 80 years and above. Petitioner has attained the age of 80 years on 01.03.2013 i.e. after the date of clarification inserted in Rule 2A. Therefore, this clarification cannot be ignored in the case of the present petitioner who attained the age of 80 years after the aforesaid clarification.

5. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in distinguishing the judgment passed by the Guahati High Court in case of Virendra Dutt Gyani (supra) as the said judgment was passed considering Section 17-B of the Act of 1954 whereas, the pension of the petitioner is governed under Rule 69(2A) of the Rules of 1993. Further, the order relied upon by the petitioner in case of Justice (Rtd.) Shambhu Singh is also distinguishable from the case of the petitioner as the aforesaid order was passed in case of a retired Judge whose services are governed under the Act of 1954 and the same will not apply to the petitioner.

6. Hence, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Petition stands dismissed accordingly.

                                   (VIVEK RUSIA)                             (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
                                       JUDGE                                         JUDGE
                          vidya