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. 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 (Dilated Cardiomyopathy) and breathing problem which forced him to stay in native place, wherefrom he had been making all correspondence with regard to his disability compensation. Prima facie, therefore, considering all the facts together, a part or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court where he received a letter of refusal disentitling him from disability compensation." 6. Replying the second objection regarding the delay in approaching the Court for claiming the dues, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in re: M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the grievance of an employee is relating to the proper pay fixation etc. it shall be treated recurring cause of action and limitation shall not be treated as barred. 7. In the present case, the benefit of 6th Pay Commission accrued in the year 2006 and of 7th Pay Commission in the year 2016. The letter to that effect has been issued by the opposite party No.6 to the petitioner on 14.06.2017 seeking information. The said letter dated 14.06.2017 has been annexed as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. 8. Further, the letter dated 20.02.2020, which has been brought into the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, clearly reveals that the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner is pending consideration, for that, some documents have been asked and as per learned counsel for the petitioner those documents have already been provided to the Competent Authority. 9. It has been noted that all those correspondences have been made with the petitioner on his address at Sultanpur (U.P.). Besides, the petitioner is aged about 80 years and in the old age he has been suffering couple of diseases. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred couple of representations to the Competent Authorities but no proper decision has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to prefer a fresh representation to the Authority Competent and the direction may be issued to decide the same within time frame. 11. Be that as it may, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) the cause of action in terms of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court at Lucknow and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: M.R. Gupta (supra), the cause of action for getting the benefits of 6th Pay Commission and 7th Pay Commission is still existing. Therefore, it is a recurring cause of action, hence, the second ground may not sustain in the eyes of law. 12. Therefore, it is a recurring cause of action, hence, the second ground may not sustain in the eyes of law. 12. Therefore, in view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No.6 i.e. Deputy Inspector General, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Mokama Ghat, Patna, Bihar taking all pleas and grounds which are available with him enclosing therewith the copies of his earlier representations and other relevant documents which are necessary for disposal of his representation within a period of one month from today, and if, such representation is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, the Authority Competent shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by speaking and reasoned order with expedition, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order along with representation and the decision thereof be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 13. In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of finally.