Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17167 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23760 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jagdish Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Nath Pandey,Santosh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Chief Standing counsel for the respondents. The petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus thereby direct to the opposite party No. 4 to provide the benefits of sixth and seventh pay commission report." Learned Chief Standing Counsel, at the outset, has raised a preliminary objection, asserting that the relief sought in the petition has already been granted to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has drawn the Court’s attention towards Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit and submitted that, vide order dated 25.07.2013, all retiral benefits have been provided to the petitioner, along with arrears of salary as per law. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner Jagdish Singh, retired from the post of Work Agent on 30.09.2007 upon reaching the age of superannuation. He points out that the 7th Pay Commission came into effect on 01.01.2016. Additionally, he states that the Chief Treasury Officer, Ayodhya/Faizabad, vide letter dated 19.09.2023 informed that pursuant to the letter dated 26.02.2011, the petitioner’s pension had been revised and is being disbursed in accordance with the 7th Pay Commission. A copy of the letter dated 19.09.2023 is on record as Annexure CA-3. Learned Standing Counsel further contends that the orders dated 19.09.2023 and 25.07.2013, under which the revised pension is being paid to the petitioner, have not been challenged in the present petition. He lastly submits that nothing is left to be paid to the petitioner. Perused the record. A perusal of the order annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 shows that the petitioner’s pay fixation was carried out with effect from 01.01.2006 in accordance with the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission and as per the 7th Pay Commission, revised pension is being paid to the petitioner. This Court has also noticed that some of the petitioners had approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP Nos. 844-853 of 2018. The Supreme Court, while declining to entertain the SLP, dismissed it, granting liberty to the State to deny the claimed pay scale and pension in accordance with the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the State Government has passed orders, as referred in the counter affidavit, refusing the pay scale claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, it appears that no further action is required on the part of the respondents. The petitioner’s pay has been fixed in accordance with the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, and revised pension is being paid to the petitioner as per the 7th Pay Commission. In the opinion of this Court, the writ petition has become infructuous for all practical purposes, hence, the petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 25.3.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench