# Ram Adhar Pandey v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** Service Single No. 7317 of 2020
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-06
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 7317 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-adhar-pandey-v-u-o-i-ors-46227
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law-Constitution of India -
Article 226(2) - even if none of the
opposite parties belong to the state of
U.P. but the cause of action has arisen
within the jurisdiction of this Court at
Lucknow

(B) Limitation and cause of action - it shall
be treated as recurring in case of proper
pay to an employee

Writ Petition disposed of. .(E-10)

List of cases cited:

## Text

796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

40. It is accordingly dismissed with
no order as to costs.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A796
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 7317 of 2020

Ram Adhar Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anil Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.

(A) Civil Law-Constitution of India -
Article 226(2) - even if none of the
opposite parties belong to the state of
U.P. but the cause of action has arisen
within the jurisdiction of this Court at
Lucknow

(B) Limitation and cause of action - it shall
be treated as recurring in case of proper
pay to an employee

Writ Petition disposed of. .(E-10)

List of cases cited:

1. Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs UOI & ors (2014) 9
SCC 329 (followed)

2. M.R. Gupta Vs. UOI & ors (1995) 5 SCC 628 I
(followed)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor
General of India and the Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned
counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed that the opposite
parties be directed to revise the pension of
the
petitioner
according
to
the
recommendations of 6th Pay Commission
and 7th Pay Commission and also pay the
arrears of revised pension and amount of
GIS, GPF and difference of arrears of
salary and other benefits along with
admissible interest.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has produced before the Court the copy of
one letter dated 20.02.2020 preferred by the
Deputy Inspector General, Group Centre,
Central Reserve Police Force (in short
C.R.P.F.), Mokama Ghat, Patna, Bihar
addressing to the petitioner apprising him
that his pay has not been revised as per the
6th
Pay
Commission
and
7th
Pay
Commission, therefore, five documents
have been indicated in the said letter with
the direction to the petitioner to provide
those documents to the department for
necessary action. The same is taken on
record. The copy of letter dated 20.02.2020
has also been provided to Sri S.B.Pandey,
learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.

4. Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant
Solicitor General of India has raised
objection regarding maintainability of the
writ petition by submitting that none of the
opposite parties are belonging to the
present State i.e. the State of U.P., more
particularly, the jurisdiction/area of this
Court, therefore, this writ petition may be
dismissed. He has further raised objection
to the extent that the petitioner is claiming
the aforesaid benefits after about more than
3-5 All. Ram Adhar Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
797
40 years, therefore, such relief may not be
granted to him.

5.

Replying
to
the
aforesaid
contention of Sri S.B. Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner has drawn
attention of this Court towards the decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: Nawal
Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India and
others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 by
submitting that in an identical facts and
circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has directed that in view of the peculiar
facts and circumstances if the recurring
cause
of
action
arises
within
the
jurisdiction of the Court concerned, the said
writ petition may be entertained. The
relevant para-17 of the aforesaid judgment
is being reproduced here-in-below:-

"17. We have perused the facts
pleaded in the writ petition and the
documents relied upon by the appellant.
Indisputably,
the
appellant
reported
sickness on account of various ailments
including difficulty in breathing. He was
referred to hospital. Consequently, he was
signed off for further medical treatment.
Finally,
the
respondent
permanently
declared the appellant unfit for sea service
due to dilated cardiomyopathy (heart
muscles disease). As a result, the Shipping
Department of the Government of India
issued an order on 12.4.2011 cancelling the
registration of the appellant as a seaman. A
copy of the letter was sent to the appellant
at his native place in Bihar where he was
staying after he was found medically unfit.
It further appears that the appellant sent a
representation from his home in the State of
Bihar to the respondent claiming disability
compensation. The said representation was
replied by the respondent, which was
addressed to him on his home address in
Gaya, Bihar rejecting his claim for
disability compensation. It is further
evident that when the appellant was signed
off and declared medically unfit, he
returned back to his home in the District of
Gaya, Bihar and, thereafter, he made all
claims and filed representation from his
home address at Gaya and those letters and
representations were entertained by the
respondents and replied and a decision on
those representations were communicated
to him on his home address in Bihar.
Admittedly, appellant was suffering from
serious heart muscles disease (Dilated
Cardiomyopathy) and breathing problem
which forced him to stay in native place,
wherefrom he had been making all
correspondence
with
regard
to
his
disability
compensation.
Prima
facie,
therefore, considering all the facts together,
a part or fraction of cause of action arose
within the jurisdiction of the Patna High
Court where he received a letter of refusal
disentitling
him
from
disability
compensation."

6. Replying the second objection
regarding the delay in approaching the
Court for claiming the dues, learned
counsel for the petitioner has drawn
attention of this Court towards another
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in re: M.R. Gupta vs. Union of
India and others reported in (1995) 5 SCC
628, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that if the grievance of an
employee is relating to the proper pay
fixation etc. it shall be treated recurring
cause of action and limitation shall not be
treated as barred.

7. In the present case, the benefit of
6th Pay Commission accrued in the year
2006 and of 7th Pay Commission in the
year 2016. The letter to that effect has been
issued by the opposite party No.6 to the
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner
on
14.06.2017
seeking
information.
The
said
letter
dated
14.06.2017 has been annexed as Annexure
No.8 to the writ petition.

8. Further, the letter dated 20.02.2020,
which has been brought into the notice of
this Court by learned counsel for the
petitioner, clearly reveals that the aforesaid
grievance of the petitioner is pending
consideration, for that, some documents
have been asked and as per learned counsel
for the petitioner those documents have
already been provided to the Competent
Authority.

9. It has been noted that all those
correspondences have been made with the
petitioner on his address at Sultanpur
(U.P.). Besides, the petitioner is aged about
80 years and in the old age he has been
suffering couple of diseases.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that the petitioner has
preferred couple of representations to the
Competent Authorities but no proper
decision has been taken. Therefore, the
petitioner may be permitted to prefer a
fresh representation to the Authority
Competent and the direction may be issued
to decide the same within time frame.

11. Be that as it may, in view of the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re:
Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) the cause
of action in terms of Article 226 (2) of the
Constitution of India has arisen within the
jurisdiction of this Court at Lucknow and in
view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in re: M.R. Gupta (supra), the cause
of action for getting the benefits of 6th Pay
Commission and 7th Pay Commission is
still existing. Therefore, it is a recurring
cause of action, hence, the second ground
may not sustain in the eyes of law.

12. Therefore, in view of the above,
the petitioner is permitted to prefer a fresh
representation to the opposite party No.6
i.e. Deputy Inspector General, Group
Centre, Central Reserve Police Force,
Mokama Ghat, Patna, Bihar taking all pleas
and grounds which are available with him
enclosing therewith the copies of his earlier
representations
and
other
relevant
documents which are necessary for disposal
of his representation within a period of one
month
from
today,
and
if,
such
representation is preferred by the petitioner
within the aforesaid stipulated time, the
Authority Competent shall consider and
decide the same strictly in accordance with
law by speaking and reasoned order with
expedition, preferably, within a period of
three months from the date of presentation
of a certified copy of this order along with
representation and the decision thereof be
communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

13. In view of the aforesaid terms, the
writ petition is disposed of finally.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A798
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Service Single No. 8038 of 2011

Sunil Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajay Pratap Singh