Amareshwar Sahay JThis letters patent appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 16/02/2005, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 4087 of 2004, whereby the learned Single Judge refused to grant any relief to the writ petitioner and consequently, dismissed the writ petition filed by him.

2. The relevant facts, in short, are that the appellant retired as Accounts Assistant, from the service of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board on 31/10/2000. According to him, at the time of retirement he was getting Rs. 10,120/-p.m. but his pension was wrongly fixed at Rs. 9670/-p.m. in place of Rs. 10,120/-p.m., i.e. on the basis of the last pay drawn by him at the time of his retirement. Challenging the wrong fixation of his pension, he filed WPS No. 2298/2003, which was disposed of by order dated 25/09/2003, giving him liberty to approach the Secretary of the Electricity Board for determination as to whether the pension of the writ petitioner was properly fixed or not. The petitioner/ appellant thereafter, approached the Board by filing a representation, which was considered and disposed of by the Secretary of Jharkhand State Electricity Board by order dated 03/06/2004, holding that the pension of the writ petitioner/appellant was rightly fixed at Rs. 9670/-p.m. The writ petitioner/appellant thereafter, challenged the said order dated 03/06/2004 of the Secretary, J.S.E.B. by filing W.P.S. no. 4087 of 2004, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 16/02/2005 against which the present appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner.

3. According to the respondents Electricity Board pursuant to the order and direction of this Court, an enquiry was made by the Audit Department and after enquiry it was found that on 27/05/1975 the writ petitioner/appellant was given pay scale of Sr. Selection Grade on the post of Bill Collector and from 01/04/1976 his post was converted as Accounts Assistant in the same pay scale. The writ petitioner was given the benefit of pay fixation in the Senior Selection Grade. The benefit of conversion of post was given to the writ petitioner, which was not permissible. After enquiry it was found that the writ petitioner was not entitled to additional pay fixation at the time of conversion of the post of Accounts Assistant since as per the rule, pay fixation could not have been done twice in the same pay scale. On enquiry, it was further found that the last pay certificate given to the writ petitioner by the Division Office was wrong and was different from the pay fixation. The last pay drawn by the writ petitioner @ of Rs. 10,120/-was not correct since the Pension Fixation Committee fixed the pension of the writ petitioner @ of Rs. 9670/- on the basis of proper fixation.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the pension of the appellant was wrongly fixed at Rs. 9670/-p.m. and it ought to have been fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn by him at the time of superannuation. In support of his submissions, he has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of “Arjun Prasad Yadav versus-State of Jharkhand, reported in 2003 (4) JCR, 682 (Jhr.)”.

5. From the impugned order of the learned Single Judge we find that the learned Single Judge considered the decision of the Division Bench in the case of “State of Jharkhand – versus-Smt. Girish Kumari Prasad, reported in 2004 (2) JLJR 426, in the cases of “Sahib Ram-versus-State of Haryana, reported in (1995) Suple. 1 SCC 18”, “Arjun Prasad Yadav-versus-State of Jharkhand, reported in 2003 (4) JCR, 682 (Jhr.)” and in the case of “Narayan Singh-versus-State of Jharkhand, reported in 2004 (1) JCR 324” and, thereafter, held that no employ can claim right over a benefit which he got wrongly or by mistake, on the ground of long lapse of time or equity. It is the duty of the State Government/Government Instrumentalities to follow the direction contained in paragraph-6 of the judgment of “Smt. Girish Kumari