Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Laxman Singh Talwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10118
1 WP. No. 6247 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 5th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6247 of 2025
SHRI LAXMAN SINGH TALWAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinay Kumar - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Jitesh Sharma - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief(s):-
7.1 The concerning respondent kindly be directed to extend the
benefit of releasing the additional 20% of their Basic Pension as per
the Finance Department Order No. F9/2/2009 Rule Four (Part-2) dated
03.08.2009 showing the increased quantum of Basic Pension starting
from 80 years onwards upto 100 years and more (i.e. Annexure-P-2).
7.2 Any other just and proper relief warranting under the facts and
circumstances of the case be also given to the Petitioner, in the ends of
justice.
2. It is fairly conceded by counsel for petitioners that this case is duly covered
by order dated 20.01.2025 passed by this Court in the case of Shri Jagdish
Prasad Sharma And Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10118
WP.No.41526 of 2024 and therefore it is prayed that this petition may also be
disposed of in the terms and conditions of the order passed in the case of Shri
Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra).
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
4. This Court, in the case of Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra), has held
as under:
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief (s):
7.1 The concerning respondent kindly be directed to extend the benefit
of releasing the additional 20% of their Basic Pension as per the Finance
Department Order No. F9/2/2009 Rule Four (Part-2) dated 03.08.2009
showing the increased quantum of Basic Pension starting from 80 years
onwards upto 100 years and more (i.e. Annexure-P-2).
7.2 Any other just and proper relief warranting under the facts and
circumstances of the case be also given to the Petitioner, in the ends of
justice.
2. At the outset, it is fairly conceded by counsel for petitioners that the present
case is duly covered by order dated 07.01.2025 passed in WP. No.28909 of 2024
[R.K. Verma Vs. M.P.M.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. And Others].
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. In the case of R.K. Verma (supra), this Court has held as under:-
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief(s):
"1. The Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may
be graciously pleased to direct Respondent No.1 to 3 to release
additional 20% of the Basic Pension of the petitioner with effect
from 10.01.2023 along with the Dearness Relief admissible on the
enhanced amount of Basic Pension.
2. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit in
the circumstances of the case be also granted"
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10118
2. This court, by a separate order passed today in the case of R.N.Gutch Vs.
M.P.M.K.V.V.C.L. and others (W.P. No. 28907/2024) has dismissed the petition
by observing as under:-
"This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief(s):
"1. The Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be
graciously pleased to direct Respondent No.1 to 3 to release
additional 20% of the Basic Pension of the petitioner with effect from
01.04.2018 and also release additional 10% of the Basic Pension of
the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2018 along with the Dearness
Relief admissible on the enhanced amount of Basic Pension.
2. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case be also granted"
2. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner has been granted additional 20%
pension after completing age of 80 years whereas 20% of additional pension has
to be granted from the beginning of age of 80 years and 30% of additional
pension has to be granted from the beginning of age of 85 years. To buttress his
contention, counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by Division
Bench of Gauhati High Court in the case of Virendra Dutt Gyani Vs. The Union
of India and others [W.P.(C) No.4224/2016] which was affirmed by the Supreme
Court by order dated 08.07.2019 passed in SLP (Civil) Diary No.18133/2019 as
well as order by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash
Saxena Vs. State of M.P. and others decided on 02.01.2023 in W.P. No.7424 of
2022 (Gwalior Bench), Sarvesh Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director and
others decided on 19.07.2024 in W.P. No.19295/2024 (Indore Bench).
3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. It is
submitted that judgment passed by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in
the case of Virendra Dutt Gyani (Supra) is distinguishable on facts which have
gone unnoticed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Since respondents have claimed that case in hand is not covered by the law
laid down by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in the case of Virendra
Dutt Gyani (Supra), therefore, it is necessary to consider the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the law in relation to grant of additional
pension from or after attaining the age of 80 years and onwards.
6. 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 which provides
that additional quantum of 20% of basic pension or family pension would be paid
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10118
"from 80 years to less than 85 years". Therefore, the question for consideration
before the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court was that what is the meaning of
"from 80 years". The Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in the case of
Virendra Dutt Gyani (Supra) has held as under:
"20. To answer this question, It is necessary to examine the
meaning of the expression "from eighty years" as appearing in
Section 178. As noticed above, the benefit of additional quantum of
pension would be entitled to a retired judge from eighty years to
less than eighty five years. What precisely would be the meaning of
the expression "from eighty years"?
21. In Collins English Dictionary, the word "from"has been defined
to mean indicating the point of departure, source, distance, cause,
change of state etc. Mr. Goswami had also argued that the word
"from" is used to specify a starting point in spatial movement i.e. to
specify starting point in an expression of limits. In Black's Law
Dictionary, 6th Edition, the word "from" has been defined to mean
implying a starting point, whether it be of time, place or condition,
and having a starting point of motion, noting the point of
departure, origin, withdrawal etc. However, it has been explained
that the word "from" does not have an absolute and invariable
meaning but should receive an inclusion or exclusion construction
according to the intention with which such word is used.
22. Therefore, as per the dictionary meaning, the expression "from
eighty years" would indicate the starting point of eighty years.
However, as a note of caution, it has also been clarified that
inclusiveness or exclusiveness associated with the expression
would have to be interpreted having regard to the intention for use
of such word or expression."
7. The word "from" assumes importance to appreciate the law governing the
lis in question. The Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in the case of Virendra
Dutt Gyani (supra) held that use of word "from" would certainly mean beginning
of age of 80 years. However the word "from" is missing in the rules which are
applicable to the facts of the case.
8. Govt. of M.P. Finance Department has issued Circular dated 3/8/2009,
relevant part of which reads as under:-
Age of Pensioner/Family Pensioner Additional Pension
80 years to less then 85 years 20% of basic pension/family pension
Hindi Version:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10118
isa'kuj@ifjokj isa'kuj dh mez vfrfjDr jkf'k
80 o"kZ ls rFkk 85 o"kZ ls de ewy isa'ku@ifjokj isa'ku dk 20%
The MPSEB has adopted the aforesaid circular by its circular dated 13/8/2009
and relevant part of the circular which has been notified and adopted provides as
under:
Hindi Version
isa'kuj@ifjokj isa'kuj dh mez vfrfjDr jkf'k
80 o"kZ ls rFkk 85 o"kZ ls de ewy isa'ku @ ifjokj isa'ku dk 20%
The word "from" is missing in the Rule. Therefore, this Court is of considered
opinion that there is vital difference between the provisions which were
applicable to the case of Virendra Dutt Gyani (Supra) and the case in hand and
the same have material effect on the outcome and entitlement of petitioner. As
already pointed out in the case of Virendra Dutt Gyani (Supra) it was held that
the incumbent would be entitled to get additional pension of 20% of basic pension
from the beginning of his age of 80 years and for reaching to the said conclusion,
word "from" has been taken into consideration. In the present case, the word
"from" is missing. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner would be entitled to
get 20% of additional pension from the beginning of his age of 80 years and it has
to be necessarily interpreted that petitioner would receive additional pension of
20% after completing the age of 80 years. The co-ordinate Benches have applied
the ratio laid down in the case of Virendra Dutt Guani (Supra) under an
impression that word "from" is also mentioned in circular, but in fact the word
"from" is not mentioned. Furthermore, the English and Hindi version of Circular
dated 3/8/2009 issued by Finance Department have been reproduced. Even if
there is any conflict in English version & Hindi Version then in the light of
judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of M/s Park Leather Industry (P)
Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors reported in (2001)3 SCC 135, the English
version would prevail. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of CMD Vs.
Hindustan Copper Ltd., by order dated 10/5/2018 passed in W.P. No. 1249/2017
had held that Hindi version would prevail, but that order has been stayed by
Supreme Court by order dated 30/7/2018 passed in SLP (C) No. 17436/18.
9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
respondents did not commit any mistake by making payment of additional pension
of 20% after age of 80 years was completed by petitioner. The co- ordinate
Benches of this Court have not considered this vital difference between the rules
which were applicable in the case of Virendra Dutt Gyani (Supra) and which are
applicable to the case in hand.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10118
10. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference. Petition fails and
is hereby dismissed."
3. Accordingly, this petition is also dismissed on the terms and conditions of
the order passed in the case of R.N.Gutch (Supra).
5. Accordingly, this petition is also dismissed on the terms and conditions of
the order passed in the case of R.K. Verma (supra).
5. Accordingly, this petition is also dismissed in the terms and conditions of
the order passed in the case of Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra).
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
