ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. The writ petitioner is in appeal against part of the judgment dated 04.01.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 917 of 2015 whereunder the learned Single Judge has not interfered in the fixation of last pay drawn at the rate of Rs.31,450/by order dated 13.06.2014 passed by the Joint Director (Administration), Economics and Statistical Directorate, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The learned Single Judge, however, was pleased to quash the order of recovery dated 30.04.2015, in view of the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in “Smt. Normi Topno Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.” reported in 2008 (1) JCR 381 (Jhr): 2007 (4) JLJR 466 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors.” 2015 (1) JCR 122 (SC) : (2015) 4 SCC 334 . The appellant approached the Writ Court seeking quashing of the order dated 13.06.2014, whereby his last pay drawn was fixed at the rate of Rs.31,450/- instead of Rs. 32,400/- which he was drawing. The appellant retired on 30.06.2014. The learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that once the order of recovery dated 30.04.2015 has been quashed by the learned Single Judge, it ought to have allowed the claim of the petitioner for pay fixation at the rate of Rs.32,400/-, the last pay drawn by him at the time of his retirement. The judgment, therefore, suffers from error on that count. 3. The factual matrix of the case as delineated from the materials on record indicates that the writ petitioner was appointed on 01.03.1975 as Block Statistical Supervisor at Jagdishpur Block, Arrah. On 01.03.1985, he was given time bound promotion. On 01.2.1996, he was given regular promotion on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer and w.e.f. 09.08.1999, he was given benefit of 2nd Assured Career Progression. On 01.09.2008, upon coming into force of the Modified Assured Career Progression scheme, the writ petitioner was granted pay-scale with a grade pay of Rs. 5400/. This has been amended in 2010 w.e.f. 01.07.1996. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of re-fixation of his salary vide order dated 13.06.2014 was not proper in the eye of law as well as on facts. The order dated 13.06.2014 (Annexure5 to the memo of appeal) has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. This has been amended in 2010 w.e.f. 01.07.1996. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of re-fixation of his salary vide order dated 13.06.2014 was not proper in the eye of law as well as on facts. The order dated 13.06.2014 (Annexure5 to the memo of appeal) has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Perusal thereof indicates that the petitioner's service was adjusted in Junior Selection Grade in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 w.e.f. 01.03.1996 vide office order dated 26.08.1997 of the Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation, Bihar. He was holding the basic post of Block Statistical Supervisor in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- on 01.01.1996. In view of the Finance Department Resolution No. 660 dated 08.02.1999, pay of the petitioner was fixed in the basic scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and on account of his adjustment earlier w.e.f. 01.03.1996 in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000. As per the said pay fixation, the salary required to be drawn by him was Rs. 8125/- which was also approved by the Finance Department. By Order No. 31 dated 22.02.2010 bearing Memo No. 414, the earlier Office Order 537 dated 26.08.1997 was modified and petitioner was adjusted as Assistant Statistical Officer w.e.f. 01.07.1996. By the said Office Order No. 31 dated 22.02.2010 of the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Bihar, the salary of the petitioner was to be fixed in terms of Fundamental Rules 22 (i)a (ii) in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000. However, while fixing the salary of the writ petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.1996 in the said scale, an amount calculated at the rate of 12% totalling Rs. 150/- was added thereto which was contrary to the Rules. The Joint Director (Administration), Directorate of Economics and Statistics, on consideration found it contrary to the pay approved by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar. He accordingly held that the writ petitioner has been paid salary in excess because of the wrong fixation to be realized from the writ petitioner. The Competent Authority/District Statistical Officer was accordingly directed to correct the pay anomaly and refix the salary of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant when being specifically asked has not been able to show any legal or factual infirmity in the order dated 13.06.2014. The Competent Authority/District Statistical Officer was accordingly directed to correct the pay anomaly and refix the salary of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant when being specifically asked has not been able to show any legal or factual infirmity in the order dated 13.06.2014. It is trite to observe that an employee of the State or its instrumentality is entitled to receive pay, allowances and any other emoluments as permissible in law only and not anything beyond that. If the pay of the petitioner was fixed and approved by the Finance Department in an appropriate scale of Rs. 8125/- w.e.f. 01.03.1996 that is the date of his adjustment, the excess pay at the rate of Rs. 150/- drawn by him could not be sustained on any grounds. However, the learned Single Judge taking into account the import of the ratio rendered by the Apex Court in the case of “Rafiq Masih” (supra) quashed the impugned order of recovery dated 30.04.2015 passed after the retirement of the petitioner. Quashing of the order of the recovery was on independent grounds supported by the proposition of law settled by the Apex Court in the case of “Rafiq Masih” (supra). However, the writ petitioner-appellant has not been able to justify that he was legally entitled to draw Rs. 32,400/- at the time of his retirement. He has therefore failed to show that the order dated 13.06.2014 was suffering from any legal or factual infirmity. The appellant having failed to show any infirmity either in the order dated 13.06.2014 and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge impugned on these counts no case for interference in the instant appeal arises. 5. Accordingly on consideration of the materials on record and submission of the parties, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed