Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner files the present writ application because he was aggrieved by an order dated 11.4.2000 contained in Annexure-2. By virtue of this order the pension and other retiral dues were authorized but at a reduced pay scale. But prior to Annexure-2 order no. 3 dated 14.1.2000 came to be passed by the District Judge, Purnia. The above order has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 6. By virtue of the decision contained in Annexure-A the earlier promotions granted to four employees of the Civil Court had to be revised. There was apparent mistake which was discovered at the time of superannuation of these employees. The time bound promotions, a creation on the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee was wrongly applied and even the period of service not rendered by petitioner as a State employee was reckoned in granting the promotion. No doubt the benefit occurring out of this promotion order was enforced for a long time and the mistake was only discovered at the time of fixation of pension of some other employees. 3. Annexure-A gives the reason for the decision. The reason is further supported by the statement which has been made in the counter affidavit in this regard. This Court does not find any fault with the reasoning and the consequent conclusion which has been arrived at. If there is no legal infirmity with Annexure-A the consequential order will follow and the order dated 11.4.2000 which is the impugned Annexure-2 will be the consequence of Annexure-A. If the Court is not inclined to interfere with Annexure-A because of the reason indicated above then there is absolutely no occasion to interfere with Annexure-2, the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was allowed this benefit in the wisdom of the respondents and no fault was found with the same till he reached the age of superannuation. Now to recover money at this stage would be a harsh order and also contrary to public policy as such. He also states that there was no misrepresentation or fraud which was committed by him. 5. Now to recover money at this stage would be a harsh order and also contrary to public policy as such. He also states that there was no misrepresentation or fraud which was committed by him. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents however, submits that there was a misrepresentation on behalf of petitioner in the sense that even before he became an employee of the Civil Court/State that period was represented by petitioner to be the period when he was an employee of the State. This was not the true state of affairs. As his earlier engagement was not under the establishment then by no stretch of imagination can it be said to be an engagement by the Court or the State. The case of the petitioner is not in isolation as is evident from the decision which has been taken in Annexure-A. Learned counsel for the respondent however points out that based on Annexure-C the recovery has already been affected on a representation and undertaking given by petitioner to the competent authority. Merely saying that he had given this undertaking under the threat and coercion may not be enough to come in his rescue. 6. This Court is not inclined to interfere with Annexure-2 because it is a fact that petitioner had got a benefit of higher pay scale because of the promotion which was granted to him which was by no stretch imagination was available to him at the relevant time. Merely because of long passage of time has intervened in between it does not mean that respondents are not entitled to revise the pay scale in accordance with the relevant circular on the issue. There being no illegality in Annexure-A which is also under challenge in LA. No. 6043 of 2007, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed against the petitioner. 7. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.