HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 39839 of 2013 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Sudhakar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondents. 2. Petitioner has not effectively pleaded in earlier round of litigation that his initial period of 3-½ years shall also be included in subsequent service period of 29 years which has already been included for purpose of determination of pension. 3. In earlier round of litigation, petitioner has only referred that his pension be fixed on revised pay-scale and by the impugned order dated 11.04.2013, a detailed order was passed that pension was rightly fixed and determination of quantum of period of Apprentice and Work-charge was not included for purpose of pension. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred supplementary affidavit whereby copy of representation was brought on record but learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out that present issue was raised therein, therefore, there is no reason to consider present issue. Otherwise also, no proposition of law is placed on record to support the prayer. 6. In view of above, this Court does not find any ground to consider the prayer of petitioner and since petitioner is aged about 80 years of age, therefore, Court hopes that he may enjoy his retiral life and would give quietus to present issue. 7. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed. September 15, 2025 N. Sinha Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudhakar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : S.C. (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Umesh Chandra Sharma .....Petitioner(s) M.D. Pachhimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad