WA 292/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. SARMA (Amitava Roy, J) Heard Mr AM Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr DC Chakraborty, learned Central Govt. counsel. In challenge is the judgment and order dated 1.7.2010 rendered in WP(C) No. 1212/2008 directing the respondents herein to pay to the appellant an additi on sum of Rs. 45/- per month as allowance with effect from 23.10.86 for having b een conferred the honorary status of Naib Subedar by the Army from the service w hereof he had retired with effect from 1.11.1985. The facts in short necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the appellant had joined the Indian Army on 3.10.1963 and retired therefrom as above and was thereafter inducted in the Arunachal Pradesh Police Force (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Force’) in the rank of Head Constable in the pay scale of Rs. 975/- to Rs. 1660/- per month with other allowances as adm issible in law. This was by the order dated 23.10.86 of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh. His pay scale as above was later on confir med. Meanwhile, he was conferred the rank of Naib Subedar on honorary basis with effect from 1.11.1985. The appellant in the above premise approached the author ities of the State of Arunachal Pradesh to extend to him the consequential benef its by conferring him the status of Sub Inspector of Police in the Force with al l incidental service benefits like pay, allowances etc. His representation to th e above effect having failed to evoke any response, he approached this Court wit h WP(C) No. 86(AP)/2002 which was disposed of on 25.4.2006 with a direction to t he Inspector General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh to cause necessary steps to be taken to have the issue regarding his entitlement for pension from the Central Government following the conferment of the status of Naib Subedar on him with ef fect from 1.11.1985 as well as his claim for the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the State service together with the consequential benefits determined. The s aid authority after an enquiry as directed by an order dated 10.7.2006 in substa nce concluded that as per para 137 of Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961 (Par t-I), Havildars granted honorary rank of Naib Subedar were entitled to an additi onal sum of Rs. 45/- per month and that the honorary rank of Naib Subedar so con ferred did not amount to promotion. Vis-à-vis the appellant it was, thus, determ ined that he was not entitled to any higher rate of pay and allowance as his sta tus was not elevated by such honorary conferment. It was, however, affirmed that he would be entitled to the additional sum of Rs. 45/- per month and liquor fac ility as to a Naib Subedar. His claim for the rank of Sub Inspector in the Force was held to be untenable. Assailing these findings, the appellant returned to this Court with WP(C ) No. 1212/2008. By the judgment and order impugned herein the decision containe d in the order dated 10.7.2006 was marginally interfered with while limiting in essence the appellant’s entitlement to the additional sum of Rs. 45/- per month with effect from 23.10.1986, the date of his re-employment in the Force. Whereas Mr Mazumdar has urged that as on the basis of Article 510 of Fi xation of Pay on Re-employment of Pensioners the appellant’s pay at the time of his re-employment as Havildar in the Force had not been correctly fixed, his ser vice entitlements have not been rightly computed, the impugned judgment and orde r which overlooks this aspect of the controversy is, thus, vitiated in law and warrants interference in the instant appeal, the learned Central Govt. counsel h as argued that this plea having regard to the date of re-employment of the appel lant at this point of time is not only stale but also is untenable in law and on facts and, therefore, the appeal ought to be dismissed in limine. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, we on a scrutiny of the preceding adjudications, are inclined to sustain the contention raised on behalf of the respondents. The app ellant’s grievance, as the materials on record demonstrate, is traceable to his perception of illegal denial of the rank of Sub Inspector of Police in the Force founded on his contemplation that conferment of the status of Naib Subedar amou nts to promotion to that rank. Not only the order dated 10.7.2006 records reason s that his said impression is unfounded and that grant of honorary status of Nai b Subedar is not a promotion to the said post so as to entitle him to a rank of Sub Inspector of Police in the Force, the learned Single Judge, in our view, has also on correct appreciation of facts and law arrived at the same conclusion. T he plea of the appellant now raised before us i.e. that his pay on his re-employ ment in the Force had not been correctly fixed had not been raised in categorica l terms at any earlier point of time. In the instant appeal at such a belated st age we are neither inclined to enlarge the framework of the adjudication nor del ve into this issue on merits. The findings and conclusions recorded by the learn ed Single Judge, our view, are based on the materials on record and do not suffe r from any error of facts or law warranting interference in the present appeal. The appeal, therefore, lacks in merit and, hence, dismissed. No costs.