JUDGMENT : Narayan Singh Dhanik, J. Being serving as Machine Operator in Marsal Cycle Pvt. Ltd. Meerut, the writ-petitioner was an Insured Person under the E.S.I. Act. On 17.03.1973, he suffered Employment Injury and, accordingly, he was sanctioned pension under the Permanent Disablement Benefit. The pension so granted was revised from time to time and in August 2013, it was erroneously revised @ Rs. 202.44 per day, while it had to be revised @ Rs. 31.76 per day. When this wrong determination/revision of pension came into light, the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, vide its order dated 26.07.2017, directed for recovery of the excess payment made to the writ-petitioner. The writ-petitioner challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 3543 of 2018 (M/S). A learned Single Judge of this Court, vide judgment dated 14.01.2021, considering that there was no pleading or establishment of fact of being misleading or fraud committed by the petitioner and also considering the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Khelwan Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1998 (1) ACJ 596, held that the recovery of excess payment made to the writ-petitioner is bad in the eyes of law and accordingly allowed the Writ Petition directing the respondents to refrain from recovering the excess amount. 2. Petitioner again filed Writ Petition No. 1957 of 2021 (M/S) seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the pension @ Rs. 202.44 per day. The said Writ Petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner did not pray for the same in the earlier writ petition in which the order dated 26.07.2017 was put to challenge and thus the petitioner already waived off part of his claim. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 3. It is evident, from the order under appeal itself, that it is not the case of the writ-petitioner/appellant that he was entitled to receive pension @ Rs. 202.44 per day. The petitioner has challenged the said action of the respondents on the ground that once the respondents have fixed the pension @ Rs. 202.44 per day and the pension at the said rate has been paid for about two years, the department has no authority to reduce the pension on the ground of erroneous fixation. 4. 202.44 per day. The petitioner has challenged the said action of the respondents on the ground that once the respondents have fixed the pension @ Rs. 202.44 per day and the pension at the said rate has been paid for about two years, the department has no authority to reduce the pension on the ground of erroneous fixation. 4. Since it is not even the case of writ-petitioner that he was entitled to receive pension @ Rs. 202.44 per day and since excess amount of pension has been granted without any authority of law, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents have rightly reduced the pension of the writ-petitioner. There cannot be any contrary opinion in this regard. It is a settled law that the correct fixation of pay, as applicable to an employee, is to be effected and pension permissible is to be paid in accordance with relevant rules, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment. Hence, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Interference in an entra-Court appeal would be justified only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality. The order under appeal does not suffer from any such infirmity. 5. Consequently, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.