Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7569 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12224 of 2024 Petitioner :- Narender Prasad And 2 Others Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Deptt. New Delhi And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following relief: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to revise the pension and pensionary benefit of the applicants by granting notional/annual increment falls on completion of one year service of the year, in the light of judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in RP (C) No.1731/2019, in Special Leave Petition No.22008/2018, in Civil Appeal No.2471/2024 order dated 11/04/2023, which is contained as Annexure No.1." 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel appearing for the other side that no cause of action has arose in the State of U.P. and therefore, this petition is not maintainable at Lucknow Bench or any court in U.P. 4. On the previous occasion, learned counsel for the petitioners was granted time to address on this point by orders dated 18.12.2024 and 07.01.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in of Nawal Kishore Sharma versus Union of India and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 to submit that a manadamus can be issued to the authority, even if they are situated outside its territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The judgement relied upon by the petitioner is clearly distinguishable. In the said case, the objection as to territorial jurisdiction was raised at a later stage of the proceedings and the Apex Court has intervened on the ground of waiver and acquiescence by the opposite party. Further in that case, the order of rejection was served upon the petitioner in the territory of State of Bihar and therefore, the Supreme Court was of the view that part for cause of action arose. In this case, no such order has been passed against the petitioner which has been served in State of U.P. Merely by residing in State of U.P., no cause of action will arise in favour of the petitioner to get the petition entertained in Lucknow Bench of this Court. Further, the objections as to maintainability of the writ petition was taken at the very first day when the petition was called upon for hearing by the respondents. 5. Since, no cause of action arises, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy as available to them in accordance with law. [Manish Kumar Nigam,J.] Order Date :- 4.2.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench