By the Court.—Pursuant to order of date passed on Recall/Restoration Application, the writ petition is restored to its original number.

2. As requested and agreed by learned counsels for parties, we proceed to hear and decide this case finally at this stage.

3. This writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 30.3.2015 passed by State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 1141 of 2013 whereby Claim Petition has been rejected and order dated 22.4.2014 passed by State Government pursuant to an interim order dated 11.10.2013 passed by Tribunal in the aforesaid Claim Petition has been confirmed.

4. The dispute relates to the grant of selection grade to petitioner on the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 1.8.2001. Petitioner, admittedly was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 18.12.1970, promoted as Executive Engineer in August’ 1988, promoted as Superintending Engineer by order dated 8.3.2001 and ultimately retired after attaining age of superannuation on 31.10.2005. His grievance is that by order dated 2.2.2006 selection grade was granted to 53 Superintending Engineers, which, according to petitioner, included some of his juniors and, therefore, he made representations and then filed aforesaid Claim Petition, initially seeking following relief:

“(i) The Hon’ble Tribunal kindly be pleased to issue directions to respondent to grant the selection grade of Superintending Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 14300-18300 to petitioner w.e.f. 1.8.2001 with all consequential service benefits including arrears of salary & revised pensionary benefits after fixing his salary in the said selection grade alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. date such amounts became due to him till the date of actual payment.”

5. By way of interim relief, petitioner requested before Tribunal that his representation dated 22.7.2013 be directed to be decided. Tribunal passed an interim order on 11.10.2013 directing respondents-authorities to decide representation dated 22.7.2013 and in the meantime respondents were also directed to file counter-affidavit. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order, representation was considered and rejected by order dated 22.4.2014 giving reasons of petitioner’s non selection in Para-7 of the said order, as under: