Point of Law:
In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances if the recurring cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned, the said writ petition may be entertained

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and the Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to revise the pension of the petitioner according to the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission and 7th Pay Commission and also pay the arrears of revised pension and amount of GIS, GPF and difference of arrears of salary and other benefits along with admissible interest.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before the Court the copy of one letter dated 20.02.2020 preferred by the Deputy Inspector General, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force (in short C.R.P.F.), Mokama Ghat, Patna, Bihar addressing to the petitioner apprising him that his pay has not been revised as per the 6th Pay Commission and 7th Pay Commission, therefore, five documents have been indicated in the said letter with the direction to the petitioner to provide those documents to the department for necessary action. The same is taken on record. The copy of letter dated 20.02.2020 has also been provided to Sri S.B.Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.

4. Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that none of the opposite parties are belonging to the present State i.e. the State of U.P., more particularly, the jurisdiction/area of this Court, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. He has further raised objection to the extent that the petitioner is claiming the aforesaid benefits after about more than 40 years, therefore, such relief may not be granted to him.

5. Replying to the aforesaid contention of Sri S.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re : Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 by submitting that in an identical facts and circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances if the recurring cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned, the said writ petition may be entertained. The relevant para-17 of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced here-in-below:-

"17. We have perused the facts pleaded in the writ petition and the documents relied upon by the appellant. Indisputably, the appellant reported sickness on account of various ailments including difficulty in breathing. He was referred to hospital. Consequently, he was signed off for further medical treatment. Finally, the respondent permanently declared the appellant unfit for sea service due to dilated cardiomyopathy (heart muscles disease). As a result, the Shipping Department of the Government of India issued an order on 12.4.2011 cancelling the registration of the appellant as a seaman. A copy of the letter was sent to the appellant at his native place in Bihar where he was staying after he was found medically unfit. It further appears that the appellant sent a representation from his home in the State of Bihar to the respondent claiming disability compensation. The said representation was replied by the respondent, which was addressed to him on his home address in Gaya, Bihar rejecting his claim for disability compensation. It is further evident that when the appellant was signed off and declared medically unfit, he returned back to his home in the District of Gaya, Bihar and, thereafter, he made all claims and filed representation from his home address at Gaya and those letters and representations were entertained by the respondents and replied and a decision on those representations were communicated to him on his home address in Bihar. Admittedly, appellant was suffering from serious heart muscles disease (Dilat