JUDGMENT

MOHAN, J.:- Respondent No. 1 was a confirmed Senior District Judge in the M. P. Judicial Service. He was appointed as a Member of the Central Administration Tribunal (C. A. T. in short) at Jabalpur on 25-6-1986. He assumed office on 30-6-1984. He sought voluntary retirement from service in the State which was a requisite under Rule 5 of the Central Administration Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

2. Respondent No. 1 retired as a Member of the Central Administration Tribunal on 17-2-1991. His pension for the Judicial Service in the State, was fixed at Rs. 1967/- and Rs. 292/- as a Member of the Central Administration Tribunal at Jabalpur. After commutation, the pension came to Rupees 1470/- p.m. for M.P. Judicial Service and Rs. 292/- for services in Central Administration Tribunal, total into Rs. 1761/- per month.

3. While respondent 1 was Member in the C.A.T., he sought an option to refund his earlier pensionary benefits of M. P. Judicial Service to Union of India to get a single consolidated pension by clubbing both the services instead of two pensions, one as a Senior District Judge of M. P. Judicial Service and as Member of C. A. T. In the alternate, he wanted that his service of four years and eight months in the C.A.T. be added to his qualifying service for fixation of pension under Rule 8A of All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DCRB Rules". His case was that such an extension was permissible under Rule 16 of DCRB Rules. To this effect, he sent detailed representation on 13-6-79 and again another representation on 19-1-1988. He was informed by communication dated 19-11-1989 that his request was under consideration. On 3-2-1992 a reply was sent that his request could not be acceded to as the same is not covered by the provisions of the Rules. He filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 3137 / 90 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court to quash the order and the mandamus to direct the State and the Registrar of High Court to revise his pension appropriately and refixed the pension based on the revised higher selection grade of Rs. 2500-2750 w.e.f. 11-5-1986. The appellant opposed the claim on the plea that Rule 8 of the Rules was exhausted. It was not permissible to take recourse to DCRB Rules of 1958 and by resorting to Rule 16 of the Rules.

4. The High Court framed a question for determination as under :

"Whether the petitioners can legitimately in law claim any right of option to combine the two services to get one consolidated pension as a Member of the C.A.T. or in the alternative to add to his qualifying service up to 62 years as a Member of the M.P.Judicial Service."

5. The Division Bench of the High Court by an impugned judgment dated 1-11-1993 held that having regard to Rule 16 of the Rules, two services could be clubbed for the purpose of pension. In construing the pension provision, as far as possible, the interpretation benevolent to the pensioners should be adopted unless a contrary intention has been clearly expressed in any part of the provisions. The High Court took the view that had the respondent continued in the State Judicial Service, he would have drawn a higher pension than what he was presently drawing. In asmuch as the first respondent was a person re-employed on a post in connection with the affairs of the Union Government after retirement on pension from the services of the State Government and was therefore entitled to get one consolidated pension by joining the two services on the basis of the CCS (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Order, 1986. In this view, it allowed the writ petition. Accordingly, a direction was issued that the pensionary benefits earned by the respondent as a Member of the State Judicial Service be allowed to be refunded or adjusted in the pension found due to him on re-fixation of his pension after accept