( 1 ) THE only question, though an important one, which arises for consideration in this case is as to what is the ceiling with regard to the pension which is payable to the respondent who retired as a Judge of the patna High court.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT 1 was appointed as a Judge on 8/4/1970 and he retired on 8/9/1984. During his tenure he worked as Acting chief justice of the Patna high court from 3/1/1979 to 20/9/1979 and again from 23/3/1982 to 28/11/1983. In this way his total period spent as Acting chief justice was approximately 28 months and 23 days.

( 3 ) ON his retirement respondent 1 became entitled to receive pension. The Accountant General, Bihar calculated the pension of the respondent at the rate of Rs 1600 per annum for 12 completed years of service and also for two years complete service as Acting chief justice but restricted the pension allowable to Rs 22,400 being the maximum which could be paid to a puisne Judge on his retirement. It may here be stated that at that time the ceiling on pension of chief justice on his retirement was Rs 28,000. 00 per annum.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT 1 then filed a writ petition in the Patna High court claiming that the ceiling was wrongly applied and inasmuch as he had worked as Acting chief justice, therefore, the higher ceiling prescribed for the chief justice should have been made applicable and not the lower ceiling. During the pendency of the writ petition the pensions were revised and similarly pension for the puisne Judge has gone up to Rs 48,000. 00 per annum while in the case of chief justice it has gone up to Rs 54,000. 00 per annum.

( 5 ) THE writ petition was heard by a division bench. There was a difference of opinion between two learned Judges and the matter was placed before the third Judge. It was ultimately held that on a construction of the relevant rules respondent 1 was entitled to have his pension computed on the basis that he was to get the same benefit which was available to a retiring chief justice, namely, the ceiling in his case was to be of Rs 54,000. 00 per annum and not Rs 48,000. 00 per annum.

( 6 ) ON behalf of the appellant it was contended in this appeal by special leave that the rules have been wrongly construed by the High court inasmuch as Rule 2 provided a ceiling of pension for retiring puisne Judges and chief justice and as respondent 1 had never been appointed as a permanent chief justice therefore, the ceiling which was applicable to him for payment of pension was Rs 48,000. 00 per annum and not Rs 54,000. 00 per annum. Shri Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent, has relied upon the High court decision and has submitted that in matters like this the provision should be construed in the manner which is beneficial to theretiring Judge and, therefore, the High court was right in coming to the conclusion that the pension payable could be more than Rs 48,000. 00 per a annum.

( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to the rules which regulate the pensions payable to the Judges. The relevant rules are contained in the First Schedule to the High court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. Rules 2 and 7, which are relevant for our purposes, read as follows:

"2. Subject to the other provisions of this part, the pension payable to a judge to whom this part applies and who has completed not less than seven years of service for pension shall be-

(A) for service as chief justice in any High court, Rs 4500 per annum for each completed year of service;

(B) for service as any other Judge in any High court, Rs 3430 per annum for each completed year of service:

PROVIDED that the pension under this paragraph shall in no case exceed rs 54,000. 00 per annum in the case of a chief justice and Rs 48,000. 00 per annum in the case of any other Judge.

7. For the purposes of this part, service as an Acting chief justice of a High court or as an ad hoc Judge of the Supreme court, shall be treated as though it were service rendered as