Gopal SinghversusUnion of India

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16112 of 2023
     ======================================================
     Gopal Singh, S/o Late Ramcharitr Singh, R/o Village - Bishunpur, P.S. -
     Kawakol, Dist. - Nawada.
                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus

1.   Union of India through IG, Central Sector, CRPF, Vibhuti Khand, Near Ram
     Manohar Lohiya Hospital, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.
2.   The DIG P, Group Centre, CRPF, Bijnor, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
3.   DIG P welfare, CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :       Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advocate
                                    Ms. Shashi Priya, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :       Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, CGC
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 30-06-2026

                       Learned    Advocate     for    the   petitioner    seeks

      permission to make necessary correction in the cause title of

      respondent no.2.

                       2. Permission is accorded.

                       3. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, learned Advocate

      for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned

      Advocate for the Union of India.

                       4. The entire case of the petitioner is based upon the

      materials suggesting discrimination has caused to him in

      extending the benefit of pension as per CCS (Pension) Rules,

      1972, as amended in CCS (Pension) Rules, 1997.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16112 of 2023 dt.30-06-2026
                                           2/4




                         5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted

         that despite the petitioner having eligibility to get admissible

         basic pay of Rs.40400/-, he has been denied the same

         irrespective of the fact the other identically situated persons

         have been extended the similar basic pay.

                         6. The entire fact has been brought to the

         knowledge of the concerned respondents by making a specific

         contention that some of the constables have been allowed the

         basic pay, as has been prayed for in the writ petition, but the

         same has not been considered in right perspective and denied to

         the petitioner.

                         7. Learned Advocate for the Union of India

         referring to the counter affidavit has submitted that the case of

         the petitioner was duly verified and upon consideration of the

         record it has been found that the claim of the petitioner seeking

         parity with Ram Kathin Ram was found incorrect and, as such,

         the case of the petitioner for stepping up with the Junior Force

         was not accepted, therefore, no direction could have been

         passed in favour of the petitioner.

                         8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, at this

         juncture, submits that in the entire writ petition he has not

         whispered about Ram Kathin Ram and only because of the fact
Patna High Court CWJC No.16112 of 2023 dt.30-06-2026
                                           3/4




         that in one of the representation the name of Ram Kathin Ram

         has been mentioned, the case of the petitioner has been

         compared with only Ram Kathin Ram and conveniently other

         identically situated persons have been left out knowingly.

                         9. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the

         materials, this Court finds substance in the submissions of the

         learned Advocate for the petitioner to the extent indicated

         hereinabove that the petitioner has mentioned the name of

         several other identically situated persons, who have been

         allowed the basic pay of Rs.40,400/-, but there is neither any

         deliberation nor denial of the same and, as such, the respondents

         are under obligation to consider the claim of the petitioner, who

         seeks parity with those, whose names have been mentioned in

         the representation dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure-P/3).

                         10. In view thereof, this Court directs the

         respondent no.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner

         dated 16.01.2020 (Aannexure-P/3) and bring to its logical

         conclusion by explaining the position as to how case of the

         petitioner is not at par with other similarly situated persons

         mentioned in the representation dated 16.01.2020 preferably

         within     a    period     of    eight    weeks   from   the   date   of

         receipt/production of a copy of this order.
             Patna High Court CWJC No.16112 of 2023 dt.30-06-2026
                                                        4/4




                                      11. The writ petition stands disposed of with the

                      aforesaid directions.


                                                      (Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          01.07.2026
Transmission Date       NA