Order This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4762 of 2003, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent herein was allowed and it was directed to the respondents-appellants herein to modify the Pension Order No. 3089 dated 11.9.2002 and determine his pension on the basis of the last pay drawn by him which he had received after getting the time bound promotion. 2. The appellants-authorities of the Birsa Agricultural University have assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the averment that the pension which the petitioner-respondent was drawing prior to the Pension Order No. 3089 dated 11.9.2002 was fit for revision as he had wrongly been drawing pension in the scale of Rs. 3,700-5,700/-, on the basis of time bound• promotion, which was wrongly granted to him. 3. The learned Single Judge went into a meticulous scrutiny of the facts and noticed that the petitioner-respondent had been granted time bound promotion, which was confirmed by the Evaluation Committee by its Resolution dated 19.3.1990 and had recommended the petitioner/respondent herein for time bound promotion with effect from 1.9.1985 and, therefore, it was ordered that the respondent was entitled to the pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn by him and the appellant-University was not correct in issuing an order dated 11 .9.2002 directing it for redetermination of his pension by revising it on the basis of the pay which he was drawing prior to his time bound promotion' 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has endeavored hard to impress upon this Court that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous as the respondent raised an issue of revision of pension after nine years of his retirement. This averment was put to the counsel for the respondent' as to why the petitioner-respondent had been accepting the lesser pension and raked up the issue only after nine years of his retirement. Learned counsel for the respondent explained the position by submitting that the petitioner-respondent herein was allowed to draw pension on the basis of last pay drawn by him which was fixed on the basis of his time bound promotion. Learned counsel for the respondent explained the position by submitting that the petitioner-respondent herein was allowed to draw pension on the basis of last pay drawn by him which was fixed on the basis of his time bound promotion. But, the University revised the pension of the respondent in the year 2002 by issuing •the Pension Order No.' 3089 dated 11.9.2002 as contained in Annexure-10 and that gave him a cause to file a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Thus, it is obvious that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner-respondent in raising the issue for revision of his pension, rather he had challenged the order of the University by which his' pension was decreased and it was ordered that his pension should be redetermined on the basis of the last pay drawn by him, not which he was drawing on the basis of his promotion but the pay which he was drawing prior to the promoted post. 5. It hardly needs to be noted, that the pension of an employee has to be determined on the basis of the last pay drawn and the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in observing that the question of revising the pension at the instance of the appellant-employer/University herein to redetermine the pension by raising an issue to the effect that the time bound promotion was wrongly granted by the Evaluation Committee, was not justified. To make the position explicitly clear, it may be relevant to reiterate that the appellant-University was legally not justified in directing to revise the pension of the petitioner-respondent by issuing an order to the effect that the pension which already being drawn by him on the basis of the last pay certificate of the promoted post should be reduced, meaning thereby that the University tried to raise a dispute that the respondent had been granted promotion on a wrong premise due to which his pension was fit to be revised and determined on the basis of the last pay drawn by him on the post which he was drawing prior to his promotional post. 6. 6. The University, in this case, or any other employer cannot be permitted to rake up an issue that the promotion was wrongly granted after the person has already retired and at the stage when the pension is fixed specially when the employee was already drawing the pension on the basis of last pay, which he was drawing on the basis of his promotional holder post. Thus, it is crystal clear that it is not the respondent herein who had raised the issue of revision of his pension after nine years rather it was the University which raised a dispute, which compelled the respondent-petitioner to file a writ challenging the order of the University, which was issued in 2002 approximately after seven years of the respondent's retirement to the effect that the pension should be revised, modified and decreased. The instant matter is not a case where the respondent can be alleged suppression of any relevant fact on his part regarding his promotion or fixation of pension, rather he was granted promotion by a duly constituted Evaluation Committee and when promotion was granted to him and he started drawing salary on the said post, the matter in regard to his promotion ought to have been treated 'as finally settled. Subsequently after seven years of his retirement, it was not open for the University to raise a dispute stating that he was wrongly granted time bound promotion, so as to reduce his pension by a revised order after seven years of the employee's retirement and thus raise a frivolous dispute that the pension that was drawn by the respondent was erroneously calculated in view of the salary of the promoted post. 7. Hence, apart from the reasons which have been assigned by the learned Single Judge, we find no merit in this appeal, for the reason recorded hereinbefore. Consequently, it is dismissed.