ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Letter No. 2470, dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure-12/1), issued by the respondent no. 6 whereby pensionary benefits allowed to him with effect from 01.02.2011 has been reduced from the post of Deputy Director (Administration) to the post of Assistant Director (Administration) and a direction has been issued to recover the extra paid amount on the basis of letter dated 14.08.2015 (Annexure-12). Further prayer has been made to release the unpaid period of pension against the post of Deputy Director (Administration) with effect from August, 2015 till the date of payment, both arrears and current, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner was appointed as a Typist – Clerk on temporary basis by Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Patna. The said appointment was extended till further orders vide order dated 09.03.1973. On 17.12.1974, on the basis of competitive examination conducted by the University, petitioner was selected and appointed on permanent post as a Routine Clerk. On 31.05.1977, he was transferred and posted at Ranchi from Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa under the Executive Engineer, RVC, Kanke, Ranchi. After creation of Birsa Agricultural University, the service of the petitioner was finally allocated to Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi on 23.02.1982. Subsequently, vide office order no. 2235, dated 14.05.1984, pay scale of the petitioner was fixed by the Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi and vide No. 3419, dated 11.06.1977, the Rajendra Agricultural University notified that due to allocation of service from the old University to the newly created University, the service benefits of the petitioner shall not be affected. Petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Section Officer and accordingly pay fixation was made on 05.06.1991. Thereafter, vide Office Order No. 484, Dated 14.02.1994, petitioner was promoted from the post of Section Officer to the post of Assistant Director (Administration) in the pay scale of Rs.2,200 – 4,000. Birsa Agricultural University had sanctioned the post of Deputy Director (Administration) by the Board of Management held on 11.09.1981 and sent the same for approval before the Government. Vide office order no. 3280, dated 28.09.2002, petitioner was further promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Administration) in the pay scale of Rs.3,000 – 4,500. Birsa Agricultural University had sanctioned the post of Deputy Director (Administration) by the Board of Management held on 11.09.1981 and sent the same for approval before the Government. Vide office order no. 3280, dated 28.09.2002, petitioner was further promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Administration) in the pay scale of Rs.3,000 – 4,500. The said post was sent before the Board of Management for its approval, which was duly approved and further confirmed by the University on 20.12.2003 vide office order no. 4883 with effect from the date of his promotion and salary was accordingly fixed. The salary of the petitioner was made against the post of Deputy Director (Administration) vide Memo No. 1736, dated 20/21 April, 2005. Petitioner was thereafter made to superannuate on 31.01.2011 vide Notice No. 4199, dated 29.09.2010 on attaining age of 60 years and his pension was fixed on 03.09.2012 in the pay scale of Rs.12,000 – 16,500 and he started drawing pension in the actual pay scale against which he retired. 4. It is case of the petitioner that State Government, vide letter no. 2810, dated 23.09.2004, has issued an order fixing pay scale of the employees of Birsa Agricultural University wherein post of Deputy Director was left out. Against that, the University made several requests and reminder letters to the State Government as well as Department of Agriculture to include the post of Deputy Director in the list as the same was created long back and the recommendations had been made accordingly but by mistake the Government had left out the post of Deputy Director. A Meeting was also held under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Department of Agriculture wherein the other officials of the University participated and on the basis of the directions issued by the Government, the Director (Administration) sent a letter to the Government vide Letter No. 2975, dated 10.07.2010 whereby and whereunder the University has sent the pay scale of the employees of the University unrevised and revised wherein the post of the petitioner as a Deputy Director (Administration) also appears with its pay scale. It was clearly highlighted vide letter no. 3615, dated 17.08.2010 that whatever benefits of revision shall be paid to the employees of the University, 80% of it shall be borne by the ICAR and 20% of the revisional benefits shall be borne by the Government. It was clearly highlighted vide letter no. 3615, dated 17.08.2010 that whatever benefits of revision shall be paid to the employees of the University, 80% of it shall be borne by the ICAR and 20% of the revisional benefits shall be borne by the Government. The Department of Agriculture and Sugarcane, vide its Resolution dated 02.09.2011, had sent the pay approval of the non-teaching employees wherein the pay scale of the Assistant Director (Administration) was mentioned but the pay scale of the Deputy Director (Administration) was not mentioned. Consequent thereto, the State Government, vide its letter no. 3088, dated 14.08.2015, wrote a letter to the Vice Chancellor that the post of Assistant Director and Deputy Director are not mentioned in the Government’s letter and as such, the petitioner’s pay scale was not mentioned in the Chart in the letter dated 14.08.2015. The University, therefore, fixed pension of the petitioner vide Memo No. 2470, dated 07.10.2015 against the post of Assistant director (Administration) by reducing his pension from the post of Deputy Director (Administration) to the post of Assistant Director (Administration) due to which his pension was reduced by around Rs.10,000/- per month. Being aggrieved, petitioner made several representations but nothing has been done and as such, he has knocked door of this Court. 5. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that illegally and arbitrarily the respondents have reduced pension of the petitioner as the University itself has accepted that the petitioner was working against the post of Deputy Director (Administration) and due to mistake of the State Government the post of Deputy Director (Administration) with pay scale was left out and as such, petitioner has been made to suffer without any fault on his part. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner was duly promoted against the post of Deputy Director (Administration) and the same was confirmed by the Board of Management and pay scale was also accordingly fixed and confirmed. Petitioner also drew his pension from February, 2011 to August, 2015 against the said pay scale of Deputy Director (Administration) but all of sudden, by issue of impugned order, pension has been reduced. Petitioner also drew his pension from February, 2011 to August, 2015 against the said pay scale of Deputy Director (Administration) but all of sudden, by issue of impugned order, pension has been reduced. Learned counsel further argues that under the Jharkhand Agricultural University Act, the Board of Management, which is constituted by the Members of Assembly and the Secretary of Agriculture, Government of Jharkhand, which is the final authority so far as creation of post and its confirmation is concerned. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel argues that once petitioner has retired in a particular pay scale, the respondents cannot be permitted to fix pension which he has received for four long years after his retirement in a reduced pay scale. It is an admitted position of law that pension has to be fixed on the basis of the last pay scale drawn by an employee. Without adhering to the provisions of law, the respondents – University has reduced pension of the petitioner which is not permissible in the eyes of law and as such, fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further submits that it has already been held by this Court that after the employees works for a longer time or after his retirement, the employer cannot take the plea that the post was not available and the concerned employee is entitled for retiral benefits as if he had worked against the sanctioned post. Learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ratni Oraon and others in W.P.(S) No. 7818 of 2012 which has been upheld upto the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 24661/2016. 6. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Ravi Kerketta, AC to learned SC (L & C) submits that there is no illegality in the letter of the State Government as petitioner was working on the post of Deputy Director (Administration) which was lacking sanction by the State Government. 6. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Ravi Kerketta, AC to learned SC (L & C) submits that there is no illegality in the letter of the State Government as petitioner was working on the post of Deputy Director (Administration) which was lacking sanction by the State Government. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards paragraphs-10, 11, 12 and 20 of the counter affidavit and argues that even though petitioner had worked on the post of Deputy Director (Administration), the same was never sanctioned by the State Government and the University had no power to sanction the said post under Section 25(2) of the Jharkhand Agricultural University Act, neither it was empowered to approve pay and allowances of its staff without prior sanction of the State Government and it was detected that the petitioner was working on the unsanctioned post, that too without approval of the State Government and as such, letter has been issued for reduction of pension. 7. Mr. A. Allam, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Mayank Sahay, argues that the University cannot be blamed for reduction of pension as the same has been done at the instance of State Government. However, no explanation has been given by the learned Sr. Counsel as to how and under what circumstances the post of Deputy Director (Administration) was approved and confirmed by the University. It has also been submitted by learned Sr. Counsel that previously also several persons worked as Deputy Director (Administration) and drew their salary from the State Government and retired but no objection was ever raised from any corner. It is only in the case at hand, objection has been raised by the State Government. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties and on perusal of record, this Court is of the view that case of the petitioner needs consideration on the following grounds: (i) No recovery can be made from pension of an employee after four years of his retirement without adhering to the provisions of law. (ii) Petitioner continued to work on the post of Deputy Director (Administration) with the approval, sanction and confirmation of the University. No objection was ever raised during the service period of the petitioner and it is only after his retirement, objection has been raised and pension has been reduced without following the due procedures and provisions of law. (ii) Petitioner continued to work on the post of Deputy Director (Administration) with the approval, sanction and confirmation of the University. No objection was ever raised during the service period of the petitioner and it is only after his retirement, objection has been raised and pension has been reduced without following the due procedures and provisions of law. (iii) The objection raised by the respondents-State that the employee was not appointed/working on the sanctioned post, is not tenable in the eyes of law on the ground that he continued to work on the said post till his retirement without any objection and received salary with confirmation and approval of the University. (iv) Petitioner was paid salary, allowances and other benefits and at no point of time any objection was raised by the respondents against appointment of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Director (Administration). Petitioner continued to work till the age of his retirement. (v) The grant of pension is recognition of service rendered by an employee during the long years of service and it has been held that pension is not a charity or bounty but statutory right of an employee and the same cannot be taken away mechanically. (vi) The case of Ratni Oraon and others (Supra) cited by the petitioner is fully applicable in the case of the petitioner. 9. As a cumulative effect of the legal proposition, judicial pronouncements and in view of factual aspects, I, hereby, quash and set aside the Order dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure-12/1) as well as Letter dated 14.08.2015 (Annexure-12) so far petitioner is concerned. 10. This Court, view order dated 07.12.2016, had passed the order “No recovery in pursuance of letter dated 24.08.2016 vide Annexure-B to the I.A. shall be made till next date”. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of pension which has already been recovered from the petitioner. Needless to say, pension of the petitioner shall be fixed on the basis of last pay drawn by him at the time of retirement. 11. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed.