WP(C) 6499/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. S Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. RK Bora, l earned State counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, who has retired from service as assistant engineer in the PWD, b y the present petition, has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant him salary in the senior grade scale of pay of junior engineer with ef fect from 1.1.1989 contending inter alia that under the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1990 (in short the ROP Rules, 1990) a junior engineer on complet ion of eight years of service is entitled to salary in the pay scale attached to the senior grade. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as su bordinate engineer (which has been re-designated as junior engineer subsequently ) under Rule 3F of the Assam Public Service Commission Regulation (Limitation of Functions), 1951 in the year 1964. His services were thereafter regularized vid e order dated 7.12.1967. The petitioner, therefore, contends that on the date on which the ROP Rules 1990 came into force he having rendered more than eight yea rs of service as junior engineer he is entitled to the salary attached to the po st of junior engineer senior grade which has not been given to him though the pe rsons who were junior to him were given the benefit of such pay scale. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s service as subordinate engineer was r egularized vide order 7.12.1967 and the post of subordinate engineer has been re -designated as junior engineer vide Notification dated 7.7.1970. According to th e petitioner, he was placed in the gradation list of junior engineers at serial No. 398 and though he has rendered eight years of service as junior engineer pri or to his promotion as assistant engineer he has not been given the benefit of t he pay scale attached to the senior grade although such benefits were given to t he officers junior to him. It appears from the ROP Rules 1990 that the pay scale in the senior grade of jun ior engineer would be admissible to the junior engineer on completion of eight y ears of service and on due selection. The sole basis of claiming the salary in t he pay scale attached to the senior grade is that the petitioner has completed e ight years of service. The petitioner no where in the petition has stated that h e was selected in such senior grade, though the admissibility of such pay scale attached to the senior grade is subject to two conditions namely; the completion of eight years of service and on due selection. That apart, the petitioner was satisfied about his salary while he was in service and has raised the dispute by filing a representation on 18.7.2001 i.e. after retiring from service on attain ing the age of superannuation on 30.8.2000. The writ petition has been filed in the year 2002 i.e. 12 years after the ROP Rules 1990 were framed. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that the petitioner is no t entitled to the relief as claimed. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.