JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed with a grievance that the respondents had not sanctioned to the graduate scale of pay to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of provincialisation of the school in question though the services of the petitioner were upgraded to Assistant Graduate Teacher from the date of provincialisation of the school. The petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and therefore confines his relief to the proper fitment in the pension which he is receiving now as a retired employee. 2. Heard Shri S.K. Das learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri J. Abedin, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department as well as Ms. M.B. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 3. The brief facts of the case may be narrated as follows :- The petitioner who is a graduate of the year 1975 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the D.P. Memorial High School in the district of Bongaigaon on 27.05.1976. The said school was a venture school at the time of the appointment of the petitioner. Subsequently vide an order dated 02.09.1991 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Goalpara District Circle, the petitioner who was an Assistant Teacher in the intermediate scale of pay of the school in question was upgraded as a Graduate Assistant Teacher in the same scale w.e.f. 06.09.1990. It may be mentioned that, in the meantime, the school in question was provincialised w.e.f. 01.10.1977. The further case of the petitioner is that as an Assistant Teacher in the Graduate Scale, his services were confirmed and the post was permanently retained vide order dated 13.12.1993 issued by the Inspector of Schools. In the said order pertaining to 10 incumbents, the name of the petitioner figured in serial No. 6. The Inspector of Schools, thereafter passed an order dated 13.11.2002 whereby the petitioner was adjusted in the Graduate Scale of pay w.e.f. 06.09.1990 and was allowed to count his service as Graduate Teacher from the date of his joining since he was a Graduate at the time of appointment. Learned counsel also brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 01.03.2003 of the department by which the seniority of service in respect of Assistant Teacher who have worked in the intermediate scale with graduate degrees to be counted from the date of their joining as assistant teacher. Learned counsel also brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 01.03.2003 of the department by which the seniority of service in respect of Assistant Teacher who have worked in the intermediate scale with graduate degrees to be counted from the date of their joining as assistant teacher. The petitioner was also allowed to hold the charge of Headmaster on the retirement of the earlier incumbent and he had retired from service on 30.09.2010 while holding the said charge of Headmaster. 4. The grievances expressed by the petitioner as incorporated above is that while calculating his pension, the initial period from his joining in the school and the date on which he was upgraded as a graduate teacher has not been taken into consideration consequently, he is getting pension less than what he ought to have been provided. 5. Appearing on behalf of the department, Sri J. Abedin, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand, submits that the initial appointment of the petitioner being as an intermediate teacher, he cannot be deemed to be a graduate teacher until his upgradation vide the order dated 02.09.1991 w.e.f. 06.09.1990. Sri Abedin submits that the fact that the petitioner was holding a graduate degree would be of no relevance since his earlier appointment was as an intermediate teacher. The claim of the petitioner would have been justified if his initial appointment was in the graduate scale of pay and not otherwise. So far as the notification dated 01.03.2003, Sri Abedin submits that the same was subsequently cancelled vide notification dated 07.06.2004 and therefore the same had ceased to have any effect. 6. Ms. M.D. Bora learned counsel for the Pension Department endorses the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department and defends the action of the authorities. 7. The rival contentions of the learned counsels have been considered. 8. Though on reading of the initial appointment order dated 27.05.1976, it is not discernable as to whether the petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher in the intermediate scale or graduate scale, the subsequent order dated 02.09.1991 issued by the Inspector of Schools makes it clear that the initial appointment of the petitioner was in the intermediate scale and the service of the petitioner was upgraded as a graduate assistant teacher w.e.f. 06.09.1990. The subsequent order of confirmation cannot be material for the adjudication of this case as it has to be seen as to what kind of service the petitioner was discharging on being inducted in the scale vide order dated 27.05.1976. The upgradation order dated 02.09.1991 makes it amply clear that though the petitioner was holding the graduate degree prior to his initial appointment, the initial appoint was in the intermediate scale. As regards the order dated 01.03.2003, relied upon by Sri Das learned counsel for the petitioner, the same has already been cancelled which has been mentioned above. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any basis for grant of relief as prayed for in this petition. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a retired teacher and is only seeking notional benefit so far his proper fitment of pension is concerned the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Commissioner of the Secondary Education Department Assam by submitting a representation and upon doing so the Commissioner may examine the same and pass necessary orders and communicate the same to the petitioner. Such representation may be filed by the petitioner along with a copy of the writ petition and a copy of this order. With the above observation and direction this writ petition stands disposed of.