The main legal point established in the judgment is that pension regulations should be uniform, reasonable, and non-oppressive, and there should be no discrimination in payment of pension and dearness allowance.

( 1 ) THE petitioner Js the widow of late Sri K. N. Joshi, who retired as Nagar Abhiyanta. Jalkal on 31. 3. 1977. The petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay family pension and dearness allowance to her in terms of the judgment and order dated 19th February, 1996 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15309 of 1994, Moti Lal Agrawal and others v. State of U. P. , and others, and further to quash the order dated 3. 4. 2001 passed by respondent No. 2 on her representation, which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE facts of this case are that petitioners husband late Sri K. N. Joshi was initially appointed in 1958 as Assistant Water Works Engineer in Nagar Mahapalika. Varanasi (now Nagar Nigam, varanasi ). He was promoted as Nagar Abhiyanta. Jalkal and retired on 31. 3. 1977. The pay scale of late K. N, Joshi at the time of retirement was Rs. 500-50-75-EB-1,000-EB-50-1250-150-50-1,400. The aforesaid pay scale for the post of Water works Engineers has been revised with effect from 1. 1. 1996 to Rs. 14. 300-400-18,300. Petitioners husband died on 17. 10. 1994 prior to the revision of the pay scale in January. 1996.

( 3 ) HEARD Sri A. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C, K. Parekh, learned counsel for the respondent.

( 4 ) IT is contended in the petition that she is being harassed by the State Government and is being made to run from pillar to post for payment of dearness allowance on the total amount of her family pension. Earlier also the petitioner had to challenge the arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondents by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2609 of 2001 in which she had prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant revised family pension along with the dearness allowance with effect from 1. 1. 1996 to her in terms of the Government order dated 13. 4. 2000 and the judgment dated 19. 2. 1996 In the case of Moti Lal Agrawal and others v. State of U. P. , and others. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a Division bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22. 1. 2001 directing the authority concerned to decide the representations of the petitioner dated 12. 9. 2000, 16. 10. 2000 and 7. 1. 2001 preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law. In pursuance of the aforesaid judgment the representations of the petitioner has been decided by the impugned order dated 14. 4. 2001 on the solitary ground that Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, has its own pension rules and the amount of family pension has rightly been granted to her under the aforesaid rules, as rules of the State Government regarding pension are not applicable in the aforesaid circumstances.

( 5 ) IT may be mentioned here that the U. P. Pay Commission (Local Bodies) 1977. 78 had made recommendation that U P. Palika pensioners must gel parity in pension, medical facilities and other reliefs as admissible to the employees of the State Government, and the State Government had accepted the recommendation of the U. P. Pay Commission (Local Bodies) and had issued an order on 28. 2. 1984 recommending that the Palika should give the same relief to its pensioners including family pension, etc. as available to the employees of the State Government drawing similar pay scale immediately from the date of retirement.

( 6 ) IT is averred in the writ petition that in 1966, the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules. 1966 (hereinafter referred 10 as Rules) came into force and late Sri K. N. Joshi, was absorbed in the centralised service in terms of Rule 33 (3) of the said Rules. These Rules also provide for payment of pension to the employees of the centralised services, in the Mahapalika/nagar Nigam who have authority to frame regulations in terms of Section 548 (f) of U. P. Nagar Mahapalika adhiniyam, 1956 with regard to pension. It appears that petitioners husband opted for pensio