JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. 2. The instant intra-Court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated10.09.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6215 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been disposed of taking into consideration that the anomaly created in the pay scale of the writ petitioner has been corrected by the University and approved by the State Government by granting him the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 under 5th Pay Revision and in consequence thereof, the post-retirement benefits and arrears of salary accruable thereof have been paid to the writ petitioner as per the specific statement made on behalf of the University and reflected through the Pay Orders, etc. taken on record. 3. The brief facts of the case which need to be enumerated herein, read as under :- The appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 70-3-100-EBS-150 by the order of Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University dated 29.11.1965. His service was confirmed. Subsequently he was promoted as Special Assistant vide order dated 19.09.1969. He was promoted to the Upper Division Assistant with effect from 18.12.1974 in the scale of pay of Rs. 348-570 vide office order dated 19.06.1975. The grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner is that although he was confirmed to the post of Special Assistant even though he was entitled for the pay scale on the basis of revision of pay by virtue of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission made effective with effect from 01.01.1996 as has been approved by Statutory Committee of Ranchi University which has not been extended in his favour although the appellant/writ petitioner has superannuated from service with effect from 31.07.2004. The appellant/writ petitioner while in service was only being paid 75% of the salary due to financial crunch and after retirement he was paid the retiral benefits on the basis of 75% of the pay drawn and as such, the appellant/writ petitioner moved to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4082 of 2005 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2005 with a direction upon the respondents to pay the admissible dues within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The order having not been complied with, the appellant/writ petitioner filed a contempt case being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 251 of 2006 but the same was dropped vide order dated 06.03.2008. The respondent Ranchi University had constituted a Statutory Committee by virtue of which decision was taken to grant the benefits of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission with effect from 01.01.1996 to the non-teaching staff of the University subject to approval of the State Government and on the basis of the aforesaid recommendation of the Registrar, Ranchi University, a letter was issued on 12.04.2008 whereby and whereunder it was decided that those employees of the University, who had retired after 01.01.1996, are also entitled to get the same benefit in which the name of the writ petitioner has been shown at Sl. No. 44. On the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Committee, six retired employees out of 128 retired employees have been extended the benefit of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission but the same has been denied to the appellant/writ petitioner including other retired employees. The appellant/writ petitioner had again approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1781 of 2010 for issuance of direction upon the respondents to disburse the dues of salary as admissible after giving the benefit of 5th Pay Revision Commission with effect from 01.01.1996 and basing upon the said pay scale, the retiral benefit was sought to be disbursed in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner including the Leave Encashment. The aforesaid writ petition was decided by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 11.10.2011 directing the respondents to treat the writ petition as representation and also directed the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand to take a decision in accordance with laws, rules, regulations, policies and Government’s enforceable orders applicable to the writ petitioner. The competent authority of the State Government took decision on 20.04.2012 whereby the respondents have fixed the pay scale of the appellant/writ petitioner at lower pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 on the basis of the recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission instead of pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. The appellant/writ petitioner also filed objection against the aforesaid decision but having given no heed, the said order was again challenged by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6247 of 2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.06.2015 directing the Registrar, Ranchi University as also Director, Higher Education, Human Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to consider the claim of the writ petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the appellant/writ petitioner had filed a representation which was decided vide order passed on 03.08.2016 but according to the appellant, his grievance has not been redressed and, therefore, he has again filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6215 of 2016 which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 4. The State has filed counter affidavit stating inter-alia therein that as per the Government order dated 10.05.2012, pay revision by virtue of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission has been decided to be paid in favour of one or the other employees but notionally from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefit from 15.11.2000 and in view of such decision, the pay scale of the writ petitioner has been revised from Rs.500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500 and by virtue of the same, the retiral benefit has also been disbursed. The grievance of the writ petitioner before the writ court is that he is entitled to get the actual monetary benefit from 01.01.1996 but according to him the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the same, therefore, the present appeal. Learned Single Judge has given no finding about legality and propriety of order dated 03.08.2016 although the said order was under challenge in the writ petition. 5. Mr. Learned Single Judge has given no finding about legality and propriety of order dated 03.08.2016 although the said order was under challenge in the writ petition. 5. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned G.A.-IV, appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that when the Government has taken a conscious decision on 10.05.2012 to grant the benefit of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission notionally from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefit from 15.11.2000 and the aforesaid order having not been assailed by the writ petitioner/appellant, he cannot come forward to get the actual benefit with effect from 01.01.1996 so long as the decision of the Government dated 10.05.2012 is in existence. The fact about not questioning the order dated 10.05.2012 has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner and in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has decided the writ petition by disposing it of on the basis of the fact that the monetary benefit on account of revision in pay scale based upon recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission has already been paid calculating it from 15.11.2000 and furthermore, the aforesaid order has never been questioned by the writ petitioner, hence the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity. 6. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned J.C. to Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, appearing for the Ranchi University, has submitted that the grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner has already been redressed as because as per the policy decision of the State Government the benefit of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission has been given notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and actual benefit with effect from 15.11.2000 which has already been extended in his favour as also all other benefits accruing thereupon has already been disbursed. So far as the contention of the appellant/writ petitioner that he is entitled to get the actual monetary benefit with effect from 01.01.1996, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as because each and every employee of the Ranchi University has been extended the actual monetary benefit with effect from 15.11.2000 and it is not a case where the appellant/writ petitioner has been discriminated in any way. So far as the issue about the order dated 03.08.2016 about holding the post of Special Assistant by the appellant/writ petitioner, the appellant/writ petitioner has never been posted as Special Assistant and as such, no document has been produced by the University to the State Government to extend him the benefit of pay scale of the post of Special Assistant and taking this aspect of the matter, the State authority has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner although the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge but even then there is no infirmity in the said order. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded in the writ petition. The moot question agitated by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant about his entitlement of monetary benefit by virtue of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission which has been implemented with effect from 01.01.1996 but the writ petitioner has been extended with the actual benefit from 15.11.2000 while he is claiming the aforesaid benefit with effect from 01.01.1996. 8. This Court has gone across the order dated 10.05.2012, as has been appended as Annexure-12 to the writ petition, wherefrom it is evident that the Government has taken a decision of notional benefit of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission with effect from 01.01.1996 and actual benefit with effect from 15.11.2000. Against order dated 10.05.2012 objection was filed but having not considered, the writ petitioner had come to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6247 of 2014 which was disposed of by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to make representation before the Ranchi University. The Registrar, Ranchi University has passed an order on 03.08.2016 whereby the claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there is no post of Special Assistant in the University as well as in the Government and as such, the writ petitioner is not entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3800 and its replacement scale and further, no documentary evidence adduced by the University regarding promotion of the writ petitioner on the post of Upper Division Assistant or Section Officer. 2000-3800 and its replacement scale and further, no documentary evidence adduced by the University regarding promotion of the writ petitioner on the post of Upper Division Assistant or Section Officer. So far as the provisional pay fixation of the writ petitioner is concerned, it has been stated therein that on scrutiny of the record it has been found that no such document regarding promotion of the writ petitioner on the post of Upper Division Assistant or Section Officer has been produced by the University however with an observation that if the University will produce sufficient document in this regard, the case of the writ petitioner can be considered. The aforesaid order has been challenged again by the writ petitioner by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6215 of 2016 but the writ petition has been disposed of making an observation that the grievance of the writ petitioner pertaining to arrears of difference of salary from 01.01.1996 has already been redressed as also the retiral benefit has been paid. The said order is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 9. The admitted fact in this case is that this is the sixth litigation seeking a claim initially for the benefit of pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996 on the basis of the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Commission. The writ petitioner is claiming that he is entitled to get the actual monetary benefit on the basis of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission with effect from 01.01.1996 and ignoring the same, the actual benefit has been given with effect from 15.11.2000. The writ petitioner approached to this Court for redressal of this grievance by filing series of litigation wherein the University has taken a plea that none of the employees of the University, either teaching or non-teaching, have been granted the actual monetary benefit on the basis of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission with effect from 01.01.1996 rather the said benefit was given notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and actual benefit with effect from 15.11.2000. It is not in dispute that the appellant/writ petitioner has been given the benefit of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission with effect from 15.11.2000 however, he is claiming the arrears of difference of salary with effect from 01.01.1996. It is not in dispute that the appellant/writ petitioner has been given the benefit of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission with effect from 15.11.2000 however, he is claiming the arrears of difference of salary with effect from 01.01.1996. It is settled position of law that in the matter of acceptance of recommendation of Pay Revision Commission the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to exercise the power of judicial review unless the decision is arbitrary. This Court has proceeded on the basis of the aforesaid position of law and finds from the material available on record as also the argument advanced on behalf of the parties that the State Government has taken a policy decision for granting the benefit of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and actual benefit with effect from 15.11.2000. It is also admitted at the Bar that the aforesaid policy decision of the State Government has not been challenged by the appellant/writ petitioner and, therefore, the said policy decision binds the parties. The appellant/writ petitioner has also failed to bring on record any document or even not whispered a word that the other co-employees have been given actual benefit of revision of pay scale on the basis of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission with effect from 01.01.1996. In view thereof, when the State Government has taken a conscious policy decision in this regard by adopting the recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefit with effect from 15.11.2000, the appellant/writ petitioner cannot have a case by way of command upon the respondents to disburse the arrears of salary treating the effectiveness of the recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission with effect from 01.01.1996. It is admitted fact that the benefit of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission has already been extended to the appellant/writ petitioner with effect from 15.11.2000 along with all arrears of salary and even the notional benefit has been extended on the basis of the revised pay scale. It is admitted fact that the benefit of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission has already been extended to the appellant/writ petitioner with effect from 15.11.2000 along with all arrears of salary and even the notional benefit has been extended on the basis of the revised pay scale. This Court has gone across the order passed by the learned Single Judge in this regard and found therefrom that the benefit of enhancement of pay scale by virtue of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission has already been extended to the appellant/writ petitioner which fact has not been disputed by him as would be evident from the pleading made in the memo of appeal that the appellant/writ petitioner is seeking a direction for disbursement of arrears of salary with effect from 01.01.1996. Keeping the fact into consideration about adoption of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission with effect from 01.01.1996 with the decision to give notional benefit from the said date and actual benefit from 15.11.2000, the finding recorded in this regard by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from infirmity. 10. So far as assailing the order dated 03.08.2016 passed in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6247 of 2014, the issue which has been raised about non-consideration of the said order cannot be disputed. We have considered the legality and propriety of the order by providing an opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant/writ petitioner has submitted that he has been promoted as Special Assistant to which he has also been confirmed and, therefore, he is entitled for the salary for the pay scale of Rs.2000-3800. He has raised the specific issue in this regard and when the grievance has not been redressed, approached to this Court wherein direction was passed for consideration of this issue by the competent authority of the State Government. In view thereof, the case of the appellant/writ petitioner has been considered but rejected without appreciating the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Special Assistant and as such, he is entitled to get the benefit of pay scale of Rs.2000 – 3800 and corresponding pay scale of Rs.10000 – 15200 due to revision in the pay scale. 11. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Ranchi University has submitted that there is no infirmity in the aforesaid order as the appellant/writ petitioner had never been promoted to the post of Special Assistant and, therefore, the authority of the State Government, after taking into consideration that there is no document available with the appellant/writ petitioner and further no post of Special Assistant is available in the establishment, the particular claim of the appellant about pay scale of Special Assistant has been rejected. 12. Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State has submitted that the competent authority of the State Government has taken a conscious decision on the basis of the documents forwarded and placed by the concerned authority of the Ranchi University wherein no document was available about the promotion of the appellant on the post of Special Assistant and, therefore, the said claim of the appellant has been rejected, hence the same suffers from no infirmity. 13. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents in this regard, put a query upon the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner that as to whether he had ever been promoted to the post of Special Assistant and if yes, whether any document is available with him to support his claim. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner has submitted in all fairness that there is no such document available with him. 14. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on this issue and after going through the finding recorded in the impugned order, is of the view that the claim of pay scale is attached to a post. The pay scale is only admissible to an employee if he has been appointed or promoted on substantive post. 14. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on this issue and after going through the finding recorded in the impugned order, is of the view that the claim of pay scale is attached to a post. The pay scale is only admissible to an employee if he has been appointed or promoted on substantive post. Even if an employee has worked on the higher post, he cannot be allowed to get the pay scale of higher post unless he has been promoted substantively to the post but herein the appellant/writ petitioner although has claimed that he has been promoted to the post of Special Assistant and as such entitled to get the pay scale attached to the post of Special Assistant of Rs.2000 – 3800 and its corresponding pay scale after revision in pay scale, but the State authority, being the competent authority to take the decision, has taken decision on the basis of the documents forwarded by the Ranchi University wherein no such document has been made available showing the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner has ever been promoted to the post of Special Assistant. In view thereof, the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner has been rejected. 15. This Court has also made a query to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner to produce the documents before this Court in support of his contention that he has ever been promoted to the post of Special Assistant but he has fairly submitted that there is no such document available with the appellant/writ petitioner showing his promotion to the post of Special Assistant. 16. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order as the authority has taken a conscious decision declining the claim of the appellant /writ petitioner of the pay scale attached to the post of Special Assistant since the said post is not available with the establishment of the Ranchi University and even if available, no such document has been produced by the Ranchi University and even the appellant/writ petitioner has not been able to produce any such document before this Court for its consideration. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the effect about non-interference with the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner of the pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996 having not suffered with infirmity, we decline to interfere with the same. 17. So far as non-consideration of the order dated 03.08.2016 by the learned Single Judge in the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6215 of 2016 is concerned, since we have deliberated upon the issues and declined to interfere with the same, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent by recording a reason about non-interference with the order dated 03.08.2016. 18. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.