Judgment 1. The matters relating to post retirement benefits of employees either of State Government or State Public Sector Undertakings are engaging the attention of the High Court on petty matters of interpretation after retirement on how much is to be given and how much is to be deducted. Time and again, the Supreme Court has said that before an employee retires his post retirement papers should be ready. 2. In the present case, all that has happened is that the employee claims pension more than what had been reckoned at Rs. 542/-. The learned judge was of the opinion that in similar circumstances on the basis of the record of the petitioner the minimum pension which ought to have been granted is Rs. 600/-. 3. If the minimum pension was Rs. 600/- this court can hardly certify that the learned judge has committed any error or any illegality because the minimum pension is the least, the employee can get in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Not to be ignored is the aspect that no record or document was produced before the court when it was sought. 4. The Patna High Court is absorbed and enveloped with matters relating to post retirement benefits of citizens seeking their retiral dues or pension. Things will have to move, instead of creating circumstances to deny pension and virtually leave no option but petition the High Court. 5. Dismissed.