Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ramdeen Pal vs Western Railway on 3 February, 2026
1 O.A.No. 201/01196/2022
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.201/01196/2022
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 3rd day of February, 2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Ramdeen Pal, S/o Late Laxminarayan Ji Pal, age 67 years, MDX 21,
Ratnapuri, Ratlam (M.P.) 457001
2. Balmukand Pal, S/o Late Bapulal Pal, Age 69 years, 180, Katju Nagar,
Ratlam (M.P.)
3. Satyendra Swaroop Shrivastava, S/o Babulal Shrivastava, Age 78
years, 423 Katju Nagar, Ratlam (M.P.)
4. Keshav Prasad Shrivastava, S/o Narayan Prashad, Age 77 years, 156
Matra Ashish Indira Nagar, Ratlam (M.P.)
5. Purshottam Singh Rathore, S/o Pancham Singh Rathore, Age 78 years,
423, Katju Nagar, Ratlam (M.P.)
6. Indresh Chander Purohit, S/o Girdharilal Purohit, Age 77 years, 37,
Lakshya Vihar, Near Sanchar Nagar, Indore (M.P.) 452016
7. Braj Kishore Mishra, S/o Rampratap Mishra, Age 78 years, EWS-9,
Katju Nagar, Ratlam
8. Lalit Singh Yadav, S/o Ranvir Singh Yadav, C/o Jayant Visha, L-58
Near Railway Station, Neemuch (M.P.) 458441
9. Pramod Kumar Bhatt, S/o A N Bhatt, Age 63 years, 37/5 Mitra Niwas
Colony, Ratlam (M.P.)
Page 1 of 8
VISHAL 2026.02.10
10:34:41
KUSHWAH+05'30'
2 O.A.No. 201/01196/2022
Reserved
10. Pradeep Kumar Bhatt, S/o A N Bhatt, Age 63 years, 37/5 Mitra Niwas
Colony, Ratlam (M.P.)
11. Mahipal Singh Chandrawat, S/o Vinod Singh Chandrawat, Age 62
years, Chandrawat Niwas, TIT Road, Ratlam (M.P.)
12. Smt. Alka Bhatt, W/o Ajay Joshi, Age 61 years, 51 Gulmohar Colony,
Ratlam (M.P.)
13. Smt. Meenaxi Dave, W/o Anil Dave, Meelan Bhawan, Near Gita
Mandir, Ratlam (M.P.)
-Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri R D Pal, in person)
Versus
Union of India & Others, represented by
1. General Manager, Western Railway, Headquarters Office, Churchgate,
Mumbai 400020
2. Divisional Rail Manager, Western Railway, Divisional Office, Do Batti
Ratlam 457001
3. Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Western Railway, Divisional Office,
Pratap Nagar, Vadodara 390001
- Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri P K Jain)
Page 2 of 8
VISHAL 2026.02.10
10:34:41
KUSHWAH+05'30'
3 O.A.No. 201/01196/2022
Reserved
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM:
Through this Original Application, the applicants are seeking direction to extend the benefit of enhanced pension/family pension to them from the date of commencement of 80, 85, 90, 95, 100 age and not on completion of 80, 85, 90, 95, 100 years and arrears of difference due to enhanced pension may also be paid. Further they have also prayed to issue revised PPO.
2. The counsel for the respondents during the course of arguments submitted that this issue has already been decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 24.03.2025 passed in O.A./201/723/2022. The order (supra) of the Tribunal has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 04.07.2025 passed in W.P. NO. 22571/2025.
3. The counsel for the applicant accedes to the submission made by the counsel for the respondents.
4. We have considered the matter and perused the orders dated 24.03.2025 passed in O.A./201/723/2022 which has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 04.07.2025 passed in W.P. NO. 22571/2025.
Page 3 of 8VISHAL 2026.02.10 10:34:41 KUSHWAH+05'30' 4 O.A.No. 201/01196/2022 Reserved
5. We find that the issue involved in this Original Application has already been decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 24.03.2025 (supra).
In the aforesaid order, this Tribunal has observed as under
"7. It is true that the decision in Virendra Dutt Gyani, (supra), stands confirmed by the Supreme Court in the SLP. All the same, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents, such a decision was rendered in the background of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, on interpretation of the provisions in Section 17(B) of the Act. But after the said decision, it has become clear that the Ministry of Law and Justice has issued an explanation to Section 17(B) of the Act has been incorporated by way of amendment. It is true that in the original Section, after Section 17(B), it was stated that a retired Judge or a family pensioner is entitled to get 20% of enhancement of basic pension of family pension from 80 years to less than 85 years. On interpretation of the provision a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court held that, that has to be interpreted as the date from which he enters 80th year and that he need not complete 80th year. In other words, if he completes 79 years and enters 80th year of age, from that day onwards he is entitled to get 20% enhancement in pension. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, such a decision has been rendered in the context of Section 17(B) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. Now by notification dated 18.12.2021, an explanation has been added to Section 17(B), which reads thus:
"Explanation: --For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that any entitlement for additional quantum of pension or family Page 4 of 8 VISHAL 2026.02.10 10:34:41 KUSHWAH+05'30' 5 O.A.No. 201/01196/2022 Reserved pension shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, from the first day of the month in which the pensioner or family pensioner completes the age specified in the first column of the scale."
That means, such an enhancement of 20%, 30% etc. will be available only if the retired Judge attains 80 years or 85 years etc., as the case may be. In other words, the decision in Virendra Dutt Gyani case stands nullified or set at naught by the amendment brought to Section 17B by way of explanation.
8. As rightly argued, the decision in Virendra Dutt Gyani has been rendered in the context of Section 17B of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, whereas the applicants are governed by the Railway Services (Pension) Rules and the provisions of the High Court Judges Act are not applicable to them.
9. Even otherwise, documents produced by the respondents clearly indicate that the provisions in Railway Services (Pension) Rules and the clarificatory office memoranda clearly indicate that the applicants are entitled to get enhancement of 20%, 30% etc. only on completing the age of 80 years, 85 years etc. In this connection, it is very important to note that the decision in Virendra Dutt Gyani was rendered by the Gauhati High Court on 15.03.2018 and the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP on 08.07.2019. We have already observed that those decisions or the context in which the said decisions were rendered are not applicable to the applicants who are governed either by the CCS (Pension) Rules or by the Railway Services (Pension) Rules.
Page 5 of 8VISHAL 2026.02.10 10:34:41 KUSHWAH+05'30' 6 O.A.No. 201/01196/2022 Reserved
10. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, Rule 69 (2A) of the Railway Services (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:-
SL. Age of Pensioner Additional Pension
No.
(1) (2) (3)
From 80 years to less 20 per cent of basic pension than 85 years From 85 years to less 30 per cent of basic pension than 90 years From 90 years to less 40 per cent of basic pension than 95 years From 95 years to less 50 per cent of basic pension than 100 years 100 years or more 100 per cent of basic pension
11. With regard to the points raised in respect of additional pension/family pension, a clarification, dated 03.10.2008, has been issued by the DoP&PW which has been adopted by Railway Board vide Circular dated 08.10.2008 reads as under:
"The additional quantum of pension/family pension, on attaining the age of 80 years and above, would be admissible from the 1st day of the month in which his date of birth falls. For example, if a pensioner/family pensioner completes age of 80 years in the month Page 6 of 8 VISHAL 2026.02.10 10:34:41 KUSHWAH+05'30' 7 O.A.No. 201/01196/2022 Reserved of August, 2008, he will be entitled to additional pension/family pension w.e.f. 01.08.2008. Those pensioners/family pensioners whose date of birth is 1st August, will also be entitled to additional pension/family pension w.e.f. 01.08.2008 on attaining the age of 80 years and above."
Thus, it is clear that as per the provisions in Railway Services (Pension) Rules and the clarificatory OM clearly indicate that the applicants are entitled to get additional quantum of pension only from the 1st day of the month in which date of birth falls, only on completion of the age of 80 years, and not in the beginning of the 80th year, as claimed by them.
12. Coming to the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati and the Hon'ble Apex Court, relied upon by the applicant, we are of the view that the same are not applicable to the case of the applicants who is governed by the Railway Services (Pension) Rules. Whereas, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court is with reference to Section 17B of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the provisions of the High Court Judges Act, which are not applicable to them.
13. Thus in view of the Rule position and the clarificatory memoranda issued in respect of the additional quantum pension and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Gauwhati High Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered a unequivocal finding that that it is not the commencement of the year, that is important, but attaining the age of 80 years, 85 years etc. as the case may be, for getting additional quantum pension as provided in the Rules and the Office Memoranda.
Page 7 of 8VISHAL 2026.02.10 10:34:41 KUSHWAH+05'30' 8 O.A.No. 201/01196/2022 Reserved
14. In the result, the applicants have not made out a case for the relief sought by them. Hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. Accordingly, this Original Application is dismissed in light of the order passed in O.A./201/723/2022. No order as to costs.
(MallikaArya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
Page 8 of 8
VISHAL 2026.02.10
10:34:41
KUSHWAH+05'30'