HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11556 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the husband of petitioner no.1 was Draftsman, who retired on 31.1.1996. The husband of the petitioner no.1 preferred Writ Petition No.7781 (SS) of 1996 before this Court wherein a direction was issued by this Court on 30.10.2012 to the respondents to grant the benefit of pay scale to the husband of petitioner no.1 with effect from the date of his appointment within a period of two months. Vide Office Order dated 8.1.2013, the Chief Engineer (E-2) passed an order sanctioning pay-scale of Rs.120-250 w.e.f. 1.2.1962 and pay-scale of Rs.160-280 w.e.f. 1.4.1965. The said Office Order was issued in compliance of judgment and order dated 30.10.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7781 (SS) of 1996. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that during pendency of the claim, the husband of petitioner no.1 died on 26.7.2013 and in compliance of judgement and order dated 30.10.2012 as well as Office Order dated 8.1.2013, the respondents have revised the pay scale of one Ajay Shankar Srivastava and granted actual benefits to him. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that neither the benefit of revised pay scale as per directions issued by the High Court was provided to the husband of petitioner no.1 nor his pension was revised as per the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. Learned Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Savita Jain Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rishabh Kapoor Kalawati Devi And Another .....Petitioner(s) U.P. Jal Nigam Urban Thru. Managing Director Lko And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners in this regard have already moved a representation, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be allowed to move a fresh representation before respondent no.2, which may be directed to be decided in accordance with law within a time frame, to which Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondents, has no objection. 5. Let a fresh representation be moved by the petitioners before respondent no.2 within ten days from today, which shall be considered and decided by respondent no.2 by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks thereafter. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of. October 6, 2025 Sachin WRIA No. 11556 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench