JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.R. Singh for the Union of India. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.9.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow. 3. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that certain orders as contained in Annexure nos.4 and 5 have not been quashed and, therefore, the Tribunal would not be in a position to consider the grant of selection grade to the petitioner as compared to his juniors. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents will take a technical plea and will not consider the case of the petitioner for grant of selection grade vis-a-vis his juniors. 5. The apprehension of the petitioner appears to be unfounded on account of the fact that still the matter is to be considered by the respondents and selection grade is to be granted considering the material on record and as directed by this Court. 6. The Tribunal while passing the aforesaid order, in Paras-24 and 25 observed as under: "24. The review DPC was held in December, 2003. There was a further delay in announcing the result on 2 parts - on 08.07.2005 (Annexure-16) for officers still in service and 4/5.10.2005 (Annexure-3) for 16 officers who had retired. These delays are regrettable as in the interim period other persons including the applicant in the eligibility list retired/died. All retired officers were granted promotion on notional basis. The applicant was granted promotion w.e.f. 31.12.1990. This act of the respondents to grant him 'notional' promotion is justified from the fact that it is a retrospective appointment in the IFS after retirement of incumbent. Moreover the ration laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Haryana & Others vs. O.P. Gupta & Others (supra) he could not be granted the benefit of any promotion unless and until the process 'only when (they) are promoted in accordance with rules'. He was later allotted 1986 as his year in the IFS in the Junior Administrative Grade after 9 years service w.e.f. 1.1.1995 vide order dated 31.07.2008. We see nothing wrong in such a fixation. His pay determination (subject to the non recovery for any period after 11.05.2001 if paid in accordance with pay fixation order dated 28.01.1999) is consequent to the basic order of appointment dated 4/5.10.2005. We see nothing wrong in such a fixation. His pay determination (subject to the non recovery for any period after 11.05.2001 if paid in accordance with pay fixation order dated 28.01.1999) is consequent to the basic order of appointment dated 4/5.10.2005. The various rulings cited by the applicant based on concept of a person's entitlement to the salary etc. of a post on which he is made work are no help as the facts and circumstances are different. In this case the applicant drew the salary as per order dated 28.01.1999 for the period that he function as IFS through an interim order of the Court. Thus, his prayers for reliefs as stated in (i) & (ii) above cannot be granted. 25. The applicant has claimed pay-fixation in selection grade on the basis of same being granted to his junior Sri Prabhakar Dubey IFS (RR-1987). The respondents have through their Counter Affidavit stated that his junior B.C. Tewari, who is at Sl.No.18 U.O.I. order dated 28.09.2010 has been granted the same w.e.f. 24.04.2006 vide order dated 17.09.2008. The applicant retired on 31.01.2004. The statement is rather confusing. The relevant position of applicant vis-a-vis Sri Tiwari is said to be as per order of Union of India dated 28.09.2010 (copy not on record). As per seniority list dated 06.10.2005 (Annexure-24) the applicant is placed at Sl.No.14 followed by G.N. Chaturvedi, Makar Dhwaj Pal, R.C. Mulasi and then by B.C. Tiwari. It is not clear whether this list had been withdrawn superseded/amended. In the face of any document to the contrary apart from mere statement, we deem it just and proper to direct the respondents to decide the date of grant of selection grade (notionally) in accordance with rules and as per his next immediate junior in the final list of IFS (promoted) officers of 1986 batch. Same may be done within 2 months. No other relief. No order as to costs." 7. We have gone through the finding recorded by the Tribunal and we do not find any illegality in the same. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if any such technical plea is taken, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a review before the Central Administrative Tribunal.