Additional pension quantum is payable only upon completion of the prescribed age, not upon entering that age-year.

Nand Kishor Singh, a retired employee of the Bihar Education Service, was born on 1 January 1937 and superannuated on 31 December 1994.

He was granted an additional quantum of pension at 20% of basic pension with effect from 1 January 2017 and at 30% with effect from 1 January 2022, on the basis that he had completed 80 and 85 years of age respectively.

The respondent contended that the benefit should commence from the beginning of the 80th and 85th years—namely, from 1 January 2016 and 1 January 2021—rather than upon completion of those ages.

The learned Single Judge accepted this interpretation and directed payment of the enhanced pension with consequential benefits.

The State of Bihar preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal against that decision.

Whether the expression providing additional pension to a pensioner aged “80 years and above but less than 85 years”, and the corresponding higher-age slabs, means completion of the specified age or merely entry into that year of age.

Whether the additional quantum of pension becomes payable from completion of 80, 85, 90 years, etc., or from the beginning of the 80th, 85th, 90th year, respectively.

Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing payment of the enhanced pension from the beginning of the relevant year of age.

Whether the respondent was entitled to arrears and other consequential benefits from the earlier dates claimed.

The Court applied Resolution No. 820 dated 23 September 2009 of the Government of Bihar and the corresponding Central Government Office Memorandum dated 1 September 2008/2 September 2008, construing the expression “80 years and above but less than 85 years” according to its ordinary meaning.

Under the plain-meaning rule, clear and unambiguous words must be given their natural and ordinary meaning, and courts cannot rewrite a provision or supply a casus omissus; the Court relied on Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 SCC 271.

The Court also relied on Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan, (1986) 4 SCC 59, which holds that, for legal computation of age, a person attains a specified age on the day preceding the anniversary of the date of birth.

The illustration in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, the National Judicial Pay Commission’s clarification that “years” means completed years, and related administrative clarifications were treated as persuasive indicators supporting entitlement only upon completion of the prescribed age.

The Court distinguished Virendra Dutt Gyani v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Gau 1501, and held that the non-speaking dismissal of the SLP in that matter did not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141, applying Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359.

The Court held that “80 years and above” ordinarily refers to a person who has attained or completed 80 years, not a person who has merely entered the 80th year.

Applying the age-computation principle in Sesma, Singh, born on 1 January 1937, attained/completed 80 years on 31 December 2016 and consequently became eligible for the 20% additional pension from 1 January 2017; similarly, he became eligible for the 30% quantum from 1 January 2022 upon attaining 85 years.

The Court rejected the respondent’s purposive interpretation because it would advance the entitlement by one full year despite the clear language of the applicable resolution and the subsequent statutory illustration and administrative clarifications.

Although pension provisions are to be construed liberally, that principle could not justify rewriting an unambiguous age-based entitlement.

The Gauhati decision was not followed because it concerned the distinct statutory scheme governing retired High Court Judges and its SLP dismissal was non-speaking.

The Court held that the additional quantum of pension is payable only upon completion of the specified age of 80, 85, 90 years, and so on, and not from the beginning of the corresponding year of age.

The Single Judge’s judgment was set aside insofar as it concerned Nand Kishor Singh, and CWJC No. 5003 of 2022 was dismissed.

Singh was declared entitled to the additional 20% quantum only from 1 January 2017 and the additional 30% quantum only from 1 January 2022; payments already made on that basis were held lawful.

The Pension Sanctioning Authority and the State Bank of India were directed to continue disbursing pension in accordance with that declaration.