JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 2. The writ petitioner, who is appellant before us, had retired on 30th April, 1989 from the post of Associate Professor (Reader) of the Birsa Agricultural University. His retirement took place when he had attained 62 years of age. He approached this Court with a prayer for revision of his pension in the scale of Rs.3700 to 5700/-. The writ petition was instituted in the year 2015. The learned First Court had dismissed the writ petition on two grounds; the first one being delay in bringing the action and the second one was that the writ petitioner had opted for retiring at the age of 62 years instead of 60 years and as per prevailing regulation an incumbent who was permitted to work for two additional years was entitled to pay scale of Rs.3,000-5,000/-. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant has sought to assail the judgment under appeal, inter-alia, on the ground that he had never exercised any option. On the aspect of delay, his case is that the right of pension is recurring cause of action and moreover, after his representation was made through the Association in the year 2013, a Committee was constituted. The Committee had recommended in his favour for higher scale but this was not accepted by the University Administration. According to the appellant, delay, if any, was to be considered from the time the authorities refused to accept recommendation of the committee. 4. On the question of delay, the Writ Court exercises jurisdiction akin to the Court of equity and one of the tenets of equity is that one who seeks equity must come before the Court at the earliest. The writ petitioner’s argument is that on rejection of the committee’s recommendation a new cause of action arose. In the facts of this case, we are, however, unable to accept this submission. The delay in instituting an action could not be revived by initiation of a fresh decision making process. The rejection order is also founded on delay in staking his claim within a reasonable period. On merit also, it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner had worked till the age of 62 years. The writ petitioner contends that he did not exercise option. The rejection order is also founded on delay in staking his claim within a reasonable period. On merit also, it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner had worked till the age of 62 years. The writ petitioner contends that he did not exercise option. But in course of hearing before us, the prevalence of the norm that one who retired at the age of 60 years would be entitled to higher scale of pay has not been disputed. Having considered the fact that the writ petitioner had worked for a longer duration, it is implicit that he had chosen to be in the lower scale category upon bargaining for a longer working period. 5. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the learned First Court. We accordingly affirm the decision of the learned First Court. 6. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. 7. The connected application (I.A. No. 6857 of 2017) shall also stand disposed of, as we have dismissed the main appeal.