High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therEwith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ. Order or Direction one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to the orders passed by the Armed Force Tribunal Chennai, Circuit bench at Hyderabad, in O.A No.138/2023, dated 09-11-2023 and conseq uentia lly, quash the same. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed by the Armed Force Tribunal ' Chennai, Circuit bench at Hyderabad, O.A No.138 o'( 2023, dated 09-1 1-2023. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.R.S.AKHILESWAR, REP. FOR DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WP.No.1958O OF 2o25 JUDGMENT '. (Per tttt' Hdt lle sn,lusLic(, Althinantl Kumar Shourli) Aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2023 passed in OA.No. 138 of 2023 by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regiona-l Bench, Chennai, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri G.R.S. Akhileswar, learned counsel representing Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on

13.09.1965 and was discharged from service on

26.09.1982 after rendering 17 years and 7 days ol qualifying service. The respondent was granted seruice pension in the rank of Naik with eflect from 26.O9.1982, for life. Learned counsel had further contended that as \ -./. t .!! l per the Rules, any Army personnel '*.ho attains the age of BO is entitled to 2Ook additional/enhanced pension. Learned counsel submitted that the date ol'birth ol the responderrt is '09.04.1944'. According to the petitioners, the respondent would complete 80 years on 'O1.O4.2024'. Accordingly, the petitioners have extended the 2O%o additional/enhanced pension to the respondent with eflect from 01.04.2024. However, the respondent was contending that since he attained tl-re age of 80 years as on O9.O4.2O23, he should be paid 2Oo/o additional/enhanced pension with effect from 'O9.O4.2O23', but not from '0 1.04.2024'. When the claim of the respondent lor grant of additional pension with effect from 09.O4.2023 was not considered, the respondent had approached the Triburral by filing OA.No.13B ol 2023 and the Tribunal uide order dated

09.71.2023 u'as pleased to allov". the O.A. in favour of the respondent and directed the petitioners to pay the 2ook additional/enhanced pension to the respondent -----.--- ,/ I I with effect frgm 09.04.2023, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that as per the Rules, one would be entitled to 2Ooh additional/ enhanced pension only on completion of BO years, but this fact was not appreciated by the Tribunal and mechalically allowed the O.A. in lavour of the respondent. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order, dated

09.11.2023 passed by the Tribunal in OA.No. 138 of 2023 and a,llow the Writ Petition.

5. This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learncd counsel for the petitioners, is of the a perusal letter No.17$l /2008(1)/ D(Pen/ Policy), dated 1 1. 1 1.2008, passed by the Government of India, clearly states that: a. A person is entitled to 2Oo/o additional/enhanced pension from 8O years to less than 85 years ofage. b. 3oo/o additional/enhanced pension from 85 years to less than 9O -\,-ears; c. 4Oota aclditional/enhanced pension from 90 years to .1 less than 95 5,661'", d. SOo,'u additional/enhanced pension from 95 years to less than 100 years; and e. lO(l%o additional/enhanced pensiorr if the person survives beyond 100 years.

6. Admittedly in the instant case, the re spondent had attained 80 years as on 09.04.2023, which would mean that the respondent would be entitled to re'ceive the 2Oo/o additional/enhanced pension from that date. The Tribunal had followed the orders of Principai Bench, AFT, New Deliii rn Union of India u. Virende-r Dutt GganiL and the orders dated 13.10.2022 in the case of I-f. General Gorakh Nath u. Union of India (OA.No.7O4 of 2O2ll and 14.07.2022 in in Sgn Ldr Yogesh Kumar Choudhary (OA.No.lO2 of 20221. Hencc, the Tribuna-l was justified 1n allowing the O.A. in lavour of the respondent. Therefore, this Court is r-rot inclinecl to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal. | ('ivil .lrJreal Diarv No. lu tSl ol l0 t9. dlted 08.07 t0l9 /

7. With the above observation' the Writ Petition 1S accordinglY dismissed' Miscelianeous Petitions, il any, pending in this Writ .Petition shail stand closed' ,TRUE COPY// *SD/,-C. DEEPIKA SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC]

2. fwo CD Copies BSR BS v I HIGH COURT DATED: 0710812025 ORDER WP.No.19580 of 2025 t.' (t 290[I zffi r)I: sr)AfCH ..1) DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 0 t I a g