A. K. YOG, J. List revised. Shri Surendra Prasad, Advocate appears on be half of the petitioner, to press this peti tion. 2. Sri R. C. Shukla, representing Respondent No. 4 and Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 1 present. 3. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 4. I have perused the petition. Petitioner, who was working as Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade in a recognised Col lege, as contemplated under the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act, claims appoint ment by promotion as Lecturer (Hindi ). Petitioner claimed that he was not being promoted. Petitioner claimed that he was entitled to and should be considered for appointment by promotion on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) which fell under the promotional quota. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of Respondent No. 1 (District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor), who did not decide his representation. 5. It is not disputed at the Bar that the petitioner has already attained age of superannuation about a year in the past. It is true that representations of the petitioner dated 19-6-1991 (Annexure 5), 20-6- 1991 (Annexure 6) and 22-6-1991 (Annexure 7), referred to in Paragraph Nos. 12,13 and 17 of the writ petition, were not decided by the concerned educational authorities. 6. Even if the petitioner has attained age of superannuation, he was entitled for decision of his representations. In case it is found by District Inspector of Schools that petitioner was entitled to be appointed on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) by promotion the same will drastically change his status and make him entitled to higher emolu ments as well as better post-retiral benefits. The fact that petitioner has at tained age of superannuation cannot be a relevant circumstance to deny adjudication of his claim. 7. Petitioner asks for payment of the balance, i. e. , difference between the pay received as Assistant Teacher, (L. T Grade) and the notional pay which he would have received, if appointed on the post of Lecturer. 8. The other relief claimed by the petitioner is to quash impugned order dated 15-7-1991 passed by District Inspec tor of Schools. This Court is not inclined to grant this relief in exercise of its power under Article 226, Constitution of India as it will disturb the position of Respondent No. 4 Gyan Bir Singh - even though petitioner has already retired. 9. This Court is not inclined to grant this relief in exercise of its power under Article 226, Constitution of India as it will disturb the position of Respondent No. 4 Gyan Bir Singh - even though petitioner has already retired. 9. In case District Inspector of Schools finds that the claim of the petitioner is sustainable under law and that he was entitled to be appointed by promotion on the post of Lecturer then he will be entitled to notional promotion and consequently payment of difference in pay by taking into account notional incre ments, etc. along with 12% simple interest per annum within two months from the date of passing of his order under this judgment. In case, petitioner is found en titled to Lecturers grade, as indicated above he shall consequently be entitled to claim retiral benefits including pension, treating him to have retired as Lecturer etc. It is, however, made clear, that in case educational authorities come to a decision against the petitioner, then the petitioner shall be entitled to no relief in this judg ment. It may be noted that no one may be made to suffer because of the fact that the writ petition has remained pending in this Court and it will not disentitle the petitioner to seek his effective remedy. 10. The writ petition is allowed in part subject to conditions indicated above. Interim order dated 22-8- 1991 stands dis charged. There will be no order as costs. Petition allowed in part. .