WP(C) 7628/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. R. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The responden ts are represented by Mr. UK Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education depart ment. 2. The petitioner, who was selected for the post of Assistant Headm aster of the Rampur Higher Secondary School, Kamrup, (Provincialised in the yea r , 1977) and was not appointed, had filed the writ petition being Civil Rule No .4212/93 and this Court by the Judgment and Order dated 4/1/95 disposed of the f irst case by declaring that there shall be no bar for the authority to make a va lid appointment by following the due process of Law by considering the case of t he petitioner. 3. The petitioner retied from service as a Subject Teacher in the y ear 1996 and filed a 2nd writ petition i.e. Civil Rule No.2834/96. This petitio n was also disposed of on 22/2/98 with the following observations: As stated above, the matter stands disposed of with a direction to the responde nts to look into the grievance of the petitioner in the present Civil Rule Petit ion and shall give redressal, if any, for which he is entitled coming within the ambit of existing rules/guidelines/ regulations/notifications etc. of the Govt. with that of the Pension Rules. The matter stands accordingly stands disposed of. 4. Thereafter, although some correspondences were exchanged between various authorities, the grievances of non-appointment in the post of Assistant Headmaster remained un-redressed and accordingly, the 3rd writ petition is now f iled seeking compensation for alleged illegal deprivation of the petitioner from the post, in which he expected to be appointed. 5. Mr. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that t he petitioner having retired from service as a Subject Teacher, is receiving les ser pension than he would have received, had he retired as Assistant Headmaster. 6. Mr. UK Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education however, con tends that the petitioner was never appointed to the higher post and hence, he i s not entitled for pensionery benefits by considering him to have retired as an Assistant Headmaster. 7. The higher pension benefits claimed by the petitioner can only b e considered if, he was appointed to the higher post of Assistant Headmaster and in this case, unfortunately, the petitioner retired from service while serving as a Subject Teacher of Rampur Higher Secondary School, Kamrup. In such circumst ances, I am of the considered opinion that no legal right accrues to the petitio ner to claim higher pensionery benefits than what he is receiving as a retired S ubject Teacher. Accordingly, I find no merit in this case. 8. In view of above, this writ petition is ordered to be dismissed without any order of costs.