Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the Bihar Judicial Service as munsif on 11-1-1955. Thereafter he became the District Judge in due course in the Bihar Superior Judicial Service and was ultimately elevated to the Bench of the Patna High Court on 18-11-1982. 2. On 23-10-1988 the petitioner retired as a Judge of the Patna High court. The total span of service of the petitioner as a High Court Judge is five years eleven months and five days. The petitioners grievance is that he is entitled to additional special pension in accordance with the pension regulations under which he is governed. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners claim of pension is governed by the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (Act no.28 of 1954) (hereinafter to be called as the said 1954 Act ). In accordance with Schedule I of the 1954 Act, the petitioner is a Part III Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in accordance with the provisions contained in Part iii, he is entitled to pension under clause 2 (a) and 2 (b) of Part III of schedule I of the 1954 Act. The said clause 2 (a) and 2 (b) of the 1954 Act as amended on the date of the petitioners retirement are set out below - "2. The pension payable to such a judge shall be - (a) the pension to which he is entitled under the ordinary rules of his service if he had not been appointed a judge, his service as a Judge being treated as service therein for the purpose of calculating that pension ; and (b) a special additional pension of rs.1600/- per annum in respect of each completed year of service for pension but in no case such additional pension together with the additional or special pension, if any, to which he is entitled under the ordinary rules of his service, shall exceed Rs.8.000/- per annum. Provided that the pension under clause (a) and the additional pension under clause (b) together shall in no case exceed Rs.54,000 per annum in the case of a Chief Justice and Rs.48,000 per annum in the case of any other Judge. " 5. Provided that the pension under clause (a) and the additional pension under clause (b) together shall in no case exceed Rs.54,000 per annum in the case of a Chief Justice and Rs.48,000 per annum in the case of any other Judge. " 5. The petitioners contention is that in accordance with the provisions contained in Article 221 of the Constitution, his right to pension cannot be varied to his dis-advantage after his appointment. The provision of Article 221 of the Constitution are set out below - "221. Salaries etc. of Judges - (1)There shall be paid to the Judges of each high Court such salaries as may be determined by Parliament by law and, until provision in that behalf is so made, such salaries as are specified in the Second schedule. (2) Every Judge shall be entitled to such allowances and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from time to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament and, until so determined, to such allowances and rights as are specified in the Second schedule. Provided that neither the allowances of a Judge nor his rights in respect of leave of absence or pension shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. " 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in accordance with clause 2 (b) of Part III of schedule I of the 1954 Act, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of special additional pension of Rs.8000/-per annum. But in the instant case the petitioner is only paid Rs.48,000/-which is only the pension amount and he is not being paid anything by way of special additional pension. This is the only point which has been argued before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the special additional pension which the petitioner is entitled to get under clause 2 (b) of Part III of Schedule I of the 1954 act is a right relating to his pension and i he is being deprived of the said right. 8. The aforesaid submission, though appears to be attractive on the face of it, but actually is not sustainable if the same is examined a little more closely. 8. The aforesaid submission, though appears to be attractive on the face of it, but actually is not sustainable if the same is examined a little more closely. The guarantee which is given under Article 221 of the Constitution is that after the appointment of the petitioner, his right relating to his pension cannot be varied to his dis-advantage. In the instant case the petitioner was appointed, as stated above, on 18-11-1982. By 18-11-1982, 1976 Amendment of 1954 Act had already come into existence. Under the said 1976 Amendment, a ceiling was imposed on Part III which crystallises the petitioners right to receive pension including the special additional pension. Therefore, by putting a ceiling on the total amount of pension including special additional pension the respondents have not, in any way, infringed the petitioners right under Article 221 of the Constitution. The petitioner has been given the amount of increased pension to which the petitioner is entitled by way of upward revision and the petitioner cannot make any grievance on that score. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that by putting a ceiling on the right to receive pension including the special additional pension upto a certain amount, the respondents authorities have not imposed any new restriction which was not in existence at the time of the petitioners appointment. Therefore, the guarantee under article 221 of the Constitution has not been breached. The apex Court in the case of M. L. Jain V/s. Union of India ( AIR 1991 SC 928 ) upheld the ceiling imposed under the aforesaid Proviso. No other point has been argued before this Court. 9. In that view of the matter, this court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant case and as such this writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. Petitioner Dismissed.