Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21761 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20736 of 2024 Petitioner :- Basdeo Vishwakarma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mritunjay Mohan Sahai Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Shri Mritunjay Mohan Sahai, learned counsel appears for the respondents No.2 to 4. Shri Shashi Kant Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner retired from the post of Blacksmith on 30.09.2011. The petitioner was not granted the benefit of 3rd Assured Career Progression. The petitioner approached this Court by instituting a writ petition registered as Writ-A No.64911 of 2015 (Basdeo Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 5 others) wherein the following directions were passed: "Considering the above, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.4 to examine the grievance of the petitioner, relating to service benefits and retiral benefits, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. All consequential action shall be taken without any further loss of time. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not examined the claim of the petitioner on merits and all issues in that regard are left open to be considered by the authority concerned, at the first instance." Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the case of the petitioner for grant of various service benefits including the IIIrd ACP were considered and declined by the order dated 09.03.2016. The aforesaid order was never challenged by the petitioner over the past nine years. The cause for delay and laches has not been satisfactorily explained. The petitioner claims that the claim of the 3rd ACP is a recurring cause of action. Reliance has been placed on the judgement rendered by this Court in Badshah v. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal Defective No.482 of 2018) which was placed on the holding of the Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others reported at AIR 1996 SC 669. The Supreme Court in M.R.Gupta (supra) while examining the case of wrong fixation of pension held that it was not 'one time action' on a recurring cause of action by stating as under: "6.The Tribunal misdirected itself when it treated the appellant's claim as 'one time action' meaning thereby that it was not a continuing wrong based on a recurring cause of action. The claim to be paid the correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of each payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance with the rules. This right of a Government servant to be paid the correct salary throughout his tenure according to computation made in accordance with rules, is akin to the right of redemption which is an incident of a subsisting mortgage and subsists so long as the mortgage itself subsists, unless the equity of redemption is extinguished. It is settled that the right of redemption is of this kind." The aforesaid judgement is clearly distinguishable on facts. The case in M.R. Gupta (supra) arose on account of a wrong fixation of pension. The instant case is not of wrong fixation of pension. To the contrary the pension was correctly fixed as per law. The petitioner's record of service was not unblemished. The pension was fixed as per law after examining the record of service of the petitioner. This fact was recorded in the order dated 09.03.2016. Failure to challenge the said order on timely basis is fatal to the case of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Ashish Tripathi Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad