JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J. :---The short question which falls for consideration in this writ petition under Article 226 is whether the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, established under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 ('Act' for short) is entitled for Higher Official Reservation (H.O.R.) facilities from the Indian Railways. 2.The facts are simple and may be shortly stated. The petitioner was member of State Judiciary. He retired as District and Sessions Judge, Satara. Thereafter, he worked as the director, Judicial Officers' Training Institute at Nagpur till 30th September, 1993. He is now appointed by the Central Government as the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai. The Appellate Tribunal is established with effect from 14th June, 1994 under section 8 of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction over areas covered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, established or to be established under the Act. For the present, the Recovery Tribunals are functioning at Ahmedabad, Mangalore, Calcutta, Delhi and Jaipur. The petitioner is the only appellate authority for all these Tribunals. 3.It seems that the petitioner claimed H.O.R. facilities by writing letters to the concerned authorities. By letter dated 7th April, 1995 the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) informed the Under Secretary (H.O.R.), Ministry of Railway in respect of the request of the petitioner about H.O.R. facilities and requested to make available to the petitioner H.O.R. booklet as requested by the petitioner. It seems that the request of the petitioner for H.O.R. facilities was declined by the Director, Traffic Commercial, Railway Board by his letter dated 30th August, 1995. The petitioner again wrote a letter dated 15th April, 1996 explaining how the petitioner was entitled to H.O.R. facilities by specifically pointing out Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Presenting Officer) Rules, 1993 ('Rules' for short). The petitioner pointed out that under Rule 8, the Presiding Officer is entitled to travelling allowances and other such facilities as applicable to the High Court Judges under the High Court Judges (Travelling Allowances) Rules, 1956. The Executive Director, Passenger Amenities, Railway Board, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner saying that H.O.R. facilities cannot be extended automatically to persons holding equivalent rank or drawing allowances at par. The Executive Director, Passenger Amenities, Railway Board, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner saying that H.O.R. facilities cannot be extended automatically to persons holding equivalent rank or drawing allowances at par. Aggrieved by the refusal to extend H.O.R. facilities, the petitioners has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4.After hearing Mr. Shah for the petitioner and Mr. Vyas for the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner, as the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal, is entitled to H.O.R. facilities while travelling by Indian Railways. The establishment of the Appellate Tribunal is provided under section 8 of the Act. The qualifications for appointment as Presiding Officer of the Tribunal are prescribed under section 10 of the Act. It lays down: "A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of an Appellate Tribunal unless he - (a) is or has been or is qualified to be a Judge of a High Court or (b) .... (c) ...." Initially appointment was upto the age of 62 but on amendment to the Act, the retirement age is now raised to 65. Section 13 provides that the salary and allowances payable to, and other terms and conditions of service (including pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits) of, the Presiding Officer of a Tribunal or an Appellate Tribunal, shall be such as may be prescribed. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 13 read with clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Act, the Central Government has framed the Rules of 1993. They are notified in Part II of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary on 4th February, 1994. 5.Under Rule 3 of the Rules it is provided that the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal shall be paid such salary as admissible to serving Judge of the High Court. Then Rule 4 provides that the Presiding Officer of an Appellate Tribunal shall be entitled to draw dearness allowance and city compensatory allowance at the rate admissible to a Judge of a High Court. Then Rule 4 provides that the Presiding Officer of an Appellate Tribunal shall be entitled to draw dearness allowance and city compensatory allowance at the rate admissible to a Judge of a High Court. Rule 8 deals with travelling allowances and it reads as follows: "Travelling Allowance - The Presiding Officer of an Appellate Tribunal while on tour or on transfer (including the journey undertaken to join the Appellate Tribunal or on the expiry of his term with the Appellate Tribunal to proceed to his home town) shall be entitled to the travelling allowance, daily allowances, transportation of personal effects and other similar matters at the same scales and at the same rates as are prescribed in the High Court Judges (Travelling Allowances), Rules, 1956." (emphasis supplied) Rule 9 of the Rules provides that the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal shall be entitled to leave travel concession at the same rates and at the same scale as are applicable to a Judge of the High Court in the State in which the Appellate Tribunal is located. 6.At this stage it will be useful to refer to High Court Judges Travelling Allowances Rules, 1956 as amended upto 1st November, 1993. Rule 2 of the said Rules is of particular importance and it reads as follows : "2(1) When a Judge travels on duty, he is entitled : (a)when travelling by railway, - (i)to a reserved two-berth compartment of the highest class including air-conditioned and if one such compartment is not available, then to a reserved four-berth compartment of the highest class (but excluding air conditioned) ; (ii)if such a compartment is provided, to take his wife along with him without payment of the fare; and (iii)to the fares at the lowest class rates actually paid for servants not exceeding two in number ; (b)when travelling by a steamer service, to one reserved first-class cabin, if available or to the fare actually paid for himself, and the fares at lowest class rates actually paid to the steamer service for servants not exceeding two in number, subject to usual deductions on account of messing charges; (c).... (d)...." 7.In my opinion, Rule 8 of the Rules of 1993 supports the petitioner's case. (d)...." 7.In my opinion, Rule 8 of the Rules of 1993 supports the petitioner's case. On a plain reading of Rule 8 it is clearly seen that the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal is entitled, while on tour to travelling allowances, daily allowances, transportation of personal effects and other similar matters, at the same scales and at the same rates as are prescribed in the High Court Judges Travelling Allowances Rules, 1956. In short, conditions of the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal are in pari materia with the service conditions of the High Court Judges in respect of the travelling allowances and the traveling facilities. Rule 8 thus entitles the Presiding Officer to H.O.R. facilities which have been made available to the High Court Judges under Rule 2(1) of the High Court Judges Travelling Allowances Rules. The words "other similar matters" appearing in Rule 8 clearly shows the intention to treat the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal on par with the High Court Judges as far as travelling allowances and other similar matters are concerned. Mr. Vyas, however, contended that the words "other similar matters" should be confined only to the allowances and not to the facilities. He contended that Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Travelling Allowances Rules will apply only so far as the allowances are concerned and not the facilities. It is not possible to accede to the arguments of Mr. Vyas. In Black's Law Dictionary (5th edition), the word "similar" has been defined to mean nearly corresponding; resembling in many respects; somewhat like, having a general likeness, although allowing for some degree of difference. The word "similar" used in the context of Rule 8 cannot be interpreted to mean identical or exactly alike. It is a word with a different meaning depending on context in which it is used. In the context of Rule 8 the words "other similar matters" clearly denotes the intention to extend other facilities like H.O.R. to the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal. On a combined reading of Rule 8 of the rules and Rule 2(1)(a) and (b) of the High Court Judges Traveling Allowances Rules, it is not possible to accept the arguments of the respondents that H.O.R. facilities cannot be extended to the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal. 8.Next, Mr. On a combined reading of Rule 8 of the rules and Rule 2(1)(a) and (b) of the High Court Judges Traveling Allowances Rules, it is not possible to accept the arguments of the respondents that H.O.R. facilities cannot be extended to the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal. 8.Next, Mr. Vyas drew my attention to the administrative instructions contained in the letter of Government of India, Ministry of Railway (Railway Board) No. 501/TG/8 dated 3rd June, 1949. Mr. Vyas argued that under para 5 of the letter, High Court Judges have been specifically covered but not the members of any Tribunal. Mr. Vyas submitted that there are large number of Tribunals in the country and, therefore, the department has a right to restrict the facilities only to the officers mentioned in paragraph 5 of the letter dated 3rd June, 1949. The argument of Mr. Vyas is required to be stated only to be rejected. By Rule 8 of the Rules, the Presiding Officers has been treated on par with High Court Judges as far as travelling allowances and other facilities are concerned. The rights conferred by Rule 8 cannot be diluted in this fashion. It is rather unfortunate that the respondents are refusing to extend the H.O.R. facilities to the petitioner to which he is entitled as a matter of right under the relevant rule. In the result, petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The respondents are directed to act on an ordinary copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court. Petition allowed.