HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15819 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Parvez Alam, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Vijay Lal, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable in U.P. Police on 10.01.1978. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 2014 and he retired on 31.12.2016. However, the grievance of the writ petitioner is that though by virtue of the order dated 05.08.2014, the pay-scale of the writ petitioner was revised and the writ petitioner is being paid pension to the tune of Rs.58600/-, however, unilaterally, without putting to notice the writ petitioner, the pay-scale of the writ petitioner was revised to the detriment being Rs.55200/- and on the said basis, now the pension is being paid and now the recovery has been effectuated on the ground that there was an error in payment of pay-scale and benefits. 3. Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing the order dated 15.05.2017, which according to the writ petitioner has not been served and computation dated 27.10.2023. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that if there is any error or discrepancy, then the same ought to have been rectified during the service and that too while putting to notice and not unilaterally. He submits that after retirement, such type of act or omission is thoroughly impermissible. He submits that since the writ petitioner retired, the writ petitioner shall approach the Respondent no.3, who be directed to decide his claim. 4. Sri Vijay Lal, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be, the petition is barred by limitation, particularly when the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Israr, Parvez Alam Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Raghuvansh Nath Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) cause of action stood arisen in the year 2016 and 2017, but the petitioner has preferred the present petition after about eight years. However, according to him,the writ petitioner to raise his grievance before the third respondent. 5. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar and in the background of the allegations of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner had not been put to notice and there is nothing adverse against the writ petitioner and he alleges that he has not committed any fraud, concealment or misrepresentation, thus the writ petition stands disposed of directing the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order before Respondent no.3 by 07.11.2025, who shall thereupon put to notice the writ petitioner while informing him in writing and after asking for inputs and on submission of inputs proceed to consider the claim of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. 6. Needless to point out that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case. October 29, 2025 N.S.Rathour WRIA No. 15819 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad