Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48744 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9072 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jarender Singh Respondent :- U.P. Jal Nigam (Gramin) Lko. Thru. Its Chairman And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Rishabh Kapoor Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Sri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel, informs that he has already filed Vakalatnama in the Registry. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 21.05.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for being given the minimum pay scale has been rejected. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.4126 of 2025 in re: Jarendra Singh vs. U.P. Jal Nigam, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 25.05.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, whereby although the Court had directed that the grievance of the petitioner can be raised before respondent no.3 and respondent no.3 was required to consider the said grievance yet reliance had been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others - (2019) 12 SCC 297. 5. The contention is that the aforesaid judgment was also made available to the competent authority vide application dated 18.04.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the petition, yet a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the respondents have nowhere even referred to the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the claim of the petitioner was perfectly covered by the dictum of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) consequently while considering the representation of the petitioner the respondents should have referred to the aforesaid judgment and even if the said judgment was not applicable the same would have been indicated by the respondents while deciding the representation of the petitioner and there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have passed an order in this regard without even referring to the judgment of the Apex Court. 7. Sri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents, does not dispute the aforesaid but states that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. 8. However, the Court is of the view that once the representation was made by the petitioner and he had specifically referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) as such even if the said judgment was not applicable the respondents should have referred to it and may have indicated that the said judgment is not applicable but there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have passed the order as impugned without referring to the judgment of the Apex Court. 9. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21.05.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed. The competent authority is directed to pass a fresh order on the representation of the petitioner keeping in view the observations made above. 10. Let such an order be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 A. Katiyar Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench