ORDER : The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: “(i) The respondents may kindly be directed to place the applicant in the revised pay scales in accordance with the Revised Pay Rules (Annexure A-1) and in the senior pay scale of Rs.14300-18150/- after completion of 14 years of service as Assistant Engineer and revise his pension with effect from 01.01.1996 with all consequential benefits, arrears of pension etc. (ii) Respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrears of pension and retirement benefits with interest @ 18% per annum. (iii) The action of the respondents and their order dated 17.7.2017 (Annexure A-6) denying the relief prayed for by the applicant may kindly be quashed and setaside.” 2. Petitioner has filed the petition on the premise that though he retired from the post of Assistant Engineer in the department of Irrigation & Public Health, Government of Himachal Pradesh, on 30.04.1994 after rendering more than 16 years 7 months service, he was entitled to post retiral financial benefits viz., the fixation of pay in revised pay scale of Rs.14300 - 18150 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and revised pension on the basis of such revised scale. Petitioner also claimed the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) introduced by the Government of Himachal Pradesh after the date of his retirement. 3. As per the averments made in the petition, petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on 15.10.1958 in the then composite department of Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (for short ‘HPPWD’) and Irrigation and Public Health Department (for short ‘I&PH Department’). Petitioner retired as Assistant Engineer on 30.04.1994 from the I&PH Department as there was bifurcation of departments into HPPWD and I&PH w.e.f. 01.01.1994. Petitioner at the time of retirement was drawing pre-revised pay scale of Rs.3000 - 4500. According to petitioner, as per pay scales revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996, petitioner was entitled for pay scale of Rs.14300 - 18150, as was admissible to the Assistant Engineers having rendered 14 years of service. 4. Petitioner also claimed that he became entitled to the benefits of ACPS introduced by the Government of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 23.06.2000 and subsequently on 27.08.2009. Petitioner also staked claim to the benefit of step-up in the pension on the basis of office memorandum dated 21.5.2013, Annexure A-4, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 5. 4. Petitioner also claimed that he became entitled to the benefits of ACPS introduced by the Government of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 23.06.2000 and subsequently on 27.08.2009. Petitioner also staked claim to the benefit of step-up in the pension on the basis of office memorandum dated 21.5.2013, Annexure A-4, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 5. Petitioner filed Original Application No.4185 of 2016 before the erstwhile Tribunal on the identical pleas as raised herein, which was disposed of on 19.04.2017 in the following terms: “3. There will be a direction to the respondent through the Principal Secretary (IPH) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to consider and take a decision on the representation dated 25.09.2015, Annexure A-12, of the applicant in accordance with law within four weeks from today. The applicant shall produce a certified copy of this order as well as a copy of representation before the respondent within a week.” 6. The representation dated 25.09.2015 submitted by the petitioner was decided by the competent authority, in pursuance to order dated 19.04.2017 passed in O.A. No. 4185 of 2016, on 17.07.2017 and the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 7. Respondent No.1 has contested the claim of the petitioner broadly on the grounds that since the petitioner had retired on 30.04.1994, he was not entitled to any benefit allowed, to the employees of Government of Himachal Pradesh holding similar post, after the date of retirement of the petitioner. The pension of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996 was fixed on the basis of pay scale of Rs.10025 -15100 which was corresponding to pre-revised pay scale of Rs.3000 - 4500 held by the petitioner on the date of the retirement. The allegation of the petitioner that certain other Assistant Engineers, who had retired before 01.01.1996 were allowed the pay scale of Rs.14300 -18150 and were being paid pension on such basis has been stated by respondent No.1 to have been wrongly granted. As per the specific case of respondent No.1, the benefits so granted to certain ineligible persons were in the process of being withdrawn. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. As per the specific case of respondent No.1, the benefits so granted to certain ineligible persons were in the process of being withdrawn. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. The core question that arises for determination is whether the petitioner can be held entitled for financial benefits allowed to its employees by the Government of Himachal Pradesh after the date on which petitioner retired? In our considered view the answer is in negative. Unless the retrospectivity was attached to the financial benefits allowed to the Assistant Engineers working with the Government of Himachal Pradesh after the date of retirement of petitioner, the benefits so allowed could not be claimed by the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that any such retrospectivity was allowed by respondent No.1. On a pointed query to the learned counsel representing the petitioner regarding any legal basis for the claim of petitioner, he has not been able to rely upon any legal principle or precedent to support the claim of the petitioner. 10. Further, the petitioner can be said to have a claim only to the revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.1996 based on revised pay scale of Rs.10025 - 15100 (pre-revised pay scale of Rs.3000 - 4500) which is said to have been granted to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 has specifically maintained that petitioner was drawing basic pay of Rs.3800/- in the pay scale of Rs.3000 - 4500 (pre-revised) on completion of 8 years of service and his pension was fixed at Rs.1970/- which was revised from time to time with corresponding pay scales revised in 1996 (Rs.10025 -15100) and 2006 (Rs.15600- 29100+6600) and accordingly, the pension of petitioner has rightly been fixed at Rs.12625/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. This factual aspect has not been denied by petitioner. That being so, petitioner cannot be allowed to claim more than permissible pensionary benefits. 11. As regards the allegation of the petitioner that some similarly situated persons, who had retired prior to 01.01.1996 from the service of Government of Himachal Pradesh, were granted the benefit of pension on the basis of revised pay scale of Rs.14300- 18150 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, respondent No.1 has taken specific stand that such benefit was wrongly allowed to some persons and steps were already initiated to withdraw the benefits so granted. On this score, no legal right can be claimed by petitioner firstly for the reasons that respondent No.1 after realizing the mistake has taken steps to withdraw the benefits wrongly allowed to certain persons and secondly, the petitioner cannot claim negative parity, which is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the light of above discussion, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.