1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9194 OF 2009 Mr. Dhondiram Maruti Bhosale : Petitioner versus The Joint Director – Higher Education Mumbai and ors. : Respondents. Ms. Vaishali K Jagdale for the Petitioner. Mr. V S Gokhale, AGP for the Respondents/State. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 06th July 2010 P.C. 1 Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard. 2 By way of the above Writ Petition, the Petitioner who is a retired employee, prays for necessary directions against the Respondent No.1 that the pension of the Petitioner should be fixed as per the pay scale of Rs.12,000-18,000 as his pay scale was fixed in the lower scale. The Petitioner was appointed as a Librarian in the college conducted by Rayat Shikshan Sanstha with effect from 01/10/1976. The Petitioner worked in the various colleges of the said institution. While the Petitioner was in service, his pay was revised as per the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission and thereafter as per the Fifth Pay Commission ultimately it was fixed at Rs.13,260/- p.a. on and from 01/04/1999. The Joint Director of Technical Education by his order/letter dated 23/05/2002, informed the Respondent No.3 College that the Petitioner’s pay has been fixed wrongly and directed to recover 2 the excess salary paid to the Petitioner. The Petitioner challenged the re-fixation of his salary by way of filing Writ Petition No.5254 of 2002. By an order dated October 21, 2002, the Division Bench of this Court partly allowed the said Writ Petition No. 5254 of 2002 and set aside the order dated 23/05/2002 so far as it relates to the recovery for the past period. By the said order, the Division Bench of this Court also directed the concerned authorities to forward the Petitioner’s papers to the State Government for fixation of his pension within eight weeks from that date. The Division Bench has passed the said order as back on 21st October 2002 and the Petitioner has retired on 31st January 2003. 3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the memo of Petition as well as the annexures annexed with the Petition. It is not in dispute that the earlier Writ Petition No.5254/2002 filed by the Petitioner challenging his re-fixation of pay scale as well as the order of recovery, has been partly allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 21st October 2002 by setting aside the recovery order. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner has wrongly given higher pay scale and when the mistake was noticed by the Joint Director of Technical Education, the same was rectified by making appropriate re-fixation. The Petitioner now cannot make any grievance that his pay scale should be revised or re-fixed and he cannot get any benefit of wrong fixation. Today the Petitioner has given the pension on the basis of the re-fixation of his pay scale. 4 We do not find any substance in the above Petition. In our view, the authorities have fixed the pension of the Petitioner on the basis of revised pay scale. The Petitioner has approached this Court after about six years since his retirement. 3 On merits also we do not find any substance in the grievance made by the Petitioner. Therefore, the prayer of the Petitioner that his pay scale should be fixed at the higher pay scale which was initially wrongly given to him cannot be granted. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the above Petition which is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]