JUDGMENT : 1. There is no basis to the appellant's claim and a completely imaginary claim was carried by way of a writ petition to this Court. The appellant applied for the post of a Chemist in the West Bengal Film Development Corporation Limited was selected therefor. The appellant thereafter sought to take advantage of a Finance Department Memorandum of October 21, 1974 to assert that since he had a doctorate degree in chemistry, in terms of such memorandum he was entitled to six incremental benefits. 2. The writ petition was considered and by a judgment and order of April 30, 2013 the same was dismissed. 3. The order impugned noticed that the appellant's representation had been considered by the Principal Secretary in the Department of Information and Cultural Affairs and rejected. In the reasoned order of the Principal Secretary which was communicated to the writ petitioner under of cover of a letter of December 29, 2008, the Principal Secretary rendered a clear finding to the following effect : "In any case before joining service the petitioner was fully aware of the required qualification for the post and the pay scale prescribed therefor. Therefore even if he had a higher qualification he cannot claim superior benefit after having consciously joined the post one defined terms as a contract with the West Bengal Film Development Corporation Ltd." 4. Elsewhere in his order passed pursuant to an order of this Court on an earlier writ petition for such official to consider the writ petitioner's representation, the Principal Secretary observed as follows: "On perusal of Finance Department's No. 10035-F dated 21.10.74 it is found that there are provisions for allowing additional increments to a Govt. employee in cases where higher qualification acquired relevant to job of the employees enabled them to render better performance. But it able not say (sic) anything about offering higher scale of pay for higher qualification. Moreover, this order is applicable to a regular Govt. employee and not to the employees of any Govt. Company or Corporation." (emphasis supplied). 5. On such ground itself, it is evident that the writ petitioner/appellant had no cause to espouse in the petition filed before this Court. Moreover, this order is applicable to a regular Govt. employee and not to the employees of any Govt. Company or Corporation." (emphasis supplied). 5. On such ground itself, it is evident that the writ petitioner/appellant had no cause to espouse in the petition filed before this Court. It is not necessary that every notification issued for government employees would cover employees in government corporations or other government undertakings without the relevant notification being specifically extended to the organisation or to the employees of such organisation. 6. On a pointed query from this Court as to how the notification would apply to the appellant, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that apart from the appellant's assertion in the petition that the notification would apply to the appellant, there is no material that he has carried to this Court to sustain such contention. 7. Since the appellant seeks a benefit under a particular memorandum which the appellant has not been able to demonstrate would apply to the appellant or the employer that the appellant serves, the basis of the appellant's claim is found to be untenable. 8. A further utterly unacceptable argument has been made on the basis of Rule 5 of the service rules pertaining to the West Bengal Film Development Corporation Ltd. Such rule provides that any matter not provided for in the service rules "shall until requisite provisions in this behalf are made in this Rules may be dealt with and disposed of as far as may be in accordance with the Rules and Orders issued from time to time by the Govt. of West Bengal." 9. The relevant memorandum of October 21, 1974, in its opening paragraph, refers to the constitution of a committee and, on terms, applies to "State Govt. employees in the new/intermediate selection grades and in the unified services..." 10. It is one thing to say that when the service rules are silent, matters not covered by the service rules would be decided with reference to some other rules; but quite another to say that the benefits conferred by some other rules would have to be incorporated in the service rules. 11. The benefit conferred by the memorandum of October 21, 1974 was limited to such employees as was specified in the memorandum. 11. The benefit conferred by the memorandum of October 21, 1974 was limited to such employees as was specified in the memorandum. If such memorandum or the benefits conferred thereunder were to be applicable to the employees of the West Bengal Financial Development Corporation Ltd., the State Govt. would have to issue a writing to such effect or; at the very least, the service rules of the West Bengal Film Development Corporation Ltd. would have to have a direct reference to the relevant memorandum. The width of Rule 5 of the service rules of the appellant's employer do not permit the incorporation by implication of a memorandum issued for the benefit of a class of government employees by the State government by specifying the persons therein. 12. There is no basis to the appellant's claim and the petition was appropriately dismissed. 13. For the appellant needlessly wasting time, the appellant will pay costs assessed at 20 GM to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within a month from date; or else, the appellant's employer will deduct the same from the appellant's salary and ensure that the same is made over to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority. FMA 2405 of 2016 is dismissed.