Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4613 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12716 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Prasad And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Upadhyay,Diksha Tiwari,Saurabh Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. It has been submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Collection Amin between 1972 to 1976 and have completed 24 years' services between 1996 to 2001 and subsequently retired from services between 2010 to 2013. During the services, the petitioners were given selection grade on completion of 10 years' services and first promotional pay scale on completion of 14 years and one extra increment on completion of 19 years of services. They were entitled to second promotional pay scale on completion of 24 years' service which has also been granted to them by means of order dated 21.8.2019 passed by the Revenue Board. Despite all the service benefits pertaining to increment and Assured Career Progression having been given to the petitioners the respondents have refused to revise their pension in light of the benefits granted to them. By means of the impugned order the case of the petitioners has been rejected. 3. It was demonstrated by the petitioners that in similar circumstances the pension of similarly situated persons have already been revised. Pension Payment Orders of Krishna Kumar Saxena, Ram Autar Saxena, Sobaran Singh etc. have been annexed along with the writ petition indicating fresh Pension Payment Orders have been issued taking into account of the service benefits granted to them and on the basis of their last pay certificate made subsequent to their grant of benefits by the courts/authorities. In light of the above, there is no reason as to why when the respondents have themselves granted all the service benefits to the petitioners the same should not be considered at the time of their revision of pension. 4. We have also further noticed the judgment and order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others, (2015) 1 SCC 347 where in case a benefit has been granted to a government servant the same should be extended to all the similarly situated persons and each government servant should not be forced to litigate individual cases separately for the benefits which has already been granted by the State to other similarly situated persons. We see no reason as to why the pension of the petitioners should not be revised taking into consideration the benefits granted by the respondents themselves. 5. Despite the fact that an affidavit was required to be filed by the competent authority, which has been filed today and same is taken on record. From perusal of said affidavit this Court finds that there is no mention with regard to denial of revised pension of the petitioner, considering that he has already been granted second promotional pay-scale and third ACP. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no reason to deny the benefit which has been sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 7. Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed.The impugned order dated 31.08.2024, is hereby set aside. 8. Let fresh exercise be conducted expeditiously, say within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The arrears in this regard shall also be computed and paid to the petitioner with expedition. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench