Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) CONTENTION of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that Petitioner was punished with penalty of censure and stoppage of increments but benefit of selection scale cannot be deferred at least on premise that penalty of censure has been inflicted upon him and in support of his submission, counsel placed reliance upon judgments of this Court delivered in Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2004 (2) CDR 925 (Raj.) and State and Anr. v. Bheem Singh, 2009 WLC (Raj.) 8 and Prabhu Lal Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9536/2005. Judgment of Division Bench has been followed by a coordinate bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9536/2005 (Prabhu Lal Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.), which was decided on 26.8.2008, wherein it has been held that grant of selection grade neither constitutes a separate cadre nor involves an element of selection; it is rather automatic and personal to incumbent on completion of number of years of service. However, penalty of censure which is treated to be one of minor penalty will not come in way of grant of selection scale. However, every penalty provided under Rule 14 of CCA Rules may not be construed as a ground for deferment. Operative part of judgment is as follows: The view taken by the Division Bench thus is that the grant of selection grade neither constitutes a separate cadre nor involves an element of selection. It is rather automatic and personal to incumbent and involves an element of selection. Unlike promotion higher pay scale is not restricted to certain number of posts. The aforesaid observations made in the context of penalty of censure whereas the substantive penalty of stoppage of annual grade increment has to be viewed in a different way. What is true of censure may not be applicable to the substantive penalty of stoppage of annual grade increments. In any case, however the action of Respondents in deferring the grant of selection scale to the Petitioner for the penalty of eight censure awarded to the Petitioner cannot be justified but his third selection scale grade could be delayed maximum by two years for two penalties of withholding of annual grade increments. This writ petition, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed.
(2.) IN the light of judgments referred to supra, present writ petition is disposed of with direction to Petitioner to make a representation to Respondents which shall be considered for grant of selection scale in light of aforesaid judgments referred to supra. The authority may decide matter by passing a speaking order within three months from date of submission of representation in accordance with law. Respondents, however, may consider case of Petitioner for grant of selection scale ignoring penalty of censure, although they may take into account penalty of stoppage of annual grade increments which may have effect of delaying grant of selection by number of years for which increments have with withheld.;