HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 8873 of 2023 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard. 2. Counsel for the petitioner says that the claim petition was filed by the respondent seven years after retirement claiming time-scale of Rs.4500- 5700 and higher pay-scale of Rs.3700-5000 from the date juniors to the respondent-claimant were granted the said benefit with 15% interest thereof. The respondent retired in the year 2008 and the claim petition was filed on 18.02.2015 which had been allowed. 3. We asked the learned counsel for the State whether the juniors to the respondent-claimant were given the aforesaid benefit, if so on what date. He fairly submitted that they were given the said benefits w.e.f. some date in 2005. We further asked him as to why the respondent-claimant was not extended the said benefit, he submitted that in the year 1993 some decision was taken to grant benefits to others, but for 35% of personnel including the respondent-claimant, it was said that the decision would be taken afterwards. However, we asked him as to what was the reason for such deferment, he could not inform us about any such decision. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shailendra Kumar Dalela, Shrish Kumar Gaur, Vinod Kumar Gautam State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others .....Petitioner(s) Teji Ram .....Respondent(s) 4. Now the admitted position is that neither before the Tribunal nor before us there is any reason as to why the respondent-claimant was denied the benefit of time scale and higher pay-scale as claimed by him while juniors to him were granted the said benefit in 2005. Of course, the respondent- claimant should have raised his claim before the Court or Tribunal at the earliest, but then we cannot lose sight of the fact that nature of the dispute is such that it gave a recurring cause of action as his salary payable every month and after retirement his pension paid to him every month, was adversely affected. Therefore, in keeping with the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case(s) of Union of India (UOI) and others Vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 and Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 144, the equities can be balanced by providing that the arrears of pension, which would be determined/revised based on the last pay-scale drawn by the respondent-claimant at the time of his retirement, which itself would be required to be revised after grant of the benefit ordered by the Tribunal, notionally, would be restricted to a period of three years since prior to the date of filing of the claim petition, which in fact was filed on 18.02.2015, but apart from it, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal. 5. We, accordingly, modify the judgment of the Tribunal but only to the aforesaid extent. Now the claim petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. October 9, 2025 Anand/- WRIA No. 8873 of 2023 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench