This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief(s):

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:-

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 "from 80 years to less than 85 years".

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:342 W.P.. No. 28909 of 2024 3 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:

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:-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:342 W.P.. No. 28909 of 2024 5

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.

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).

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (and) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 1/10/2025 5:54:35 PM