SHARMA, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 6. 5. 1999 (Annexure-A-2) and 19. 7. 2000 (Annexure A-3 ). He further prayed to this Court that he be given 2nd benefit of selection scale w. e. f. 25. 1. 1992 with all consequential benefits.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner (Ram Dayal Meena) he was appointed as Patwari on 24. 1. 1974. The State of Rajasthan, Finance Department issued an order dated 25th of January 1992 whereby the selection scales were ordered to be allowed to the employees who have successfully completed 9, 18 and 27 years of service. After completed the 18 years satisfactory service as on 25. 1. 1992, the petitioner was allowed 2nd selection scale benefit and was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2000 dated 9. 6. 1993 and same was made effective on 9. 6. 1993 w. e. f. 25. 1. 1992. But all of sudden, after a long spell of 5 years time, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 4. 1. 1997 wherein it was mentioned that he was inflicted with the punishment of censure vide order dated 26. 9. 1990. Hence, the selection scale benefit allowed to him w. e. f. 25th of January 1992 is to be reviewed. He was also asked to submit objection, if any. The petitioner submitted a cogent, convincing and correct representation on 5. 2. 1997 against the show cause notice dated 4. 1. 1997. According to the petitioner, the second benefit of selection was allowed to him after careful scrutiny of his service record, now after a period of 6 years his case of grant of section scale cannot be reviewed under the garb of order dated 26. 6. 1990. But the representation was rejected by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is getting second benefit of selection scale for the last 7 years, as such the principles of promisory estopple are fully attracted in his case. He further submits that the petitioner has approached to the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short `the learned Tribunal') but the learned Tribunal (respondent No. 2) rejected the appeal of the petitioner by passing a non-speaking order.
(3.) TO support the case of the petitioner the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to a circular dated 23. 7. 1992 which reproduced as under:- *** He has also placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Principal Seat of this Court in Devi Singh vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 350/2000) reported in WLN UC 2004, 327 which runs as under:- Service Law-Selection Grade-Withdrawal of-Natural Justice, Selection grade is automatic result of completion of given number of years and does not depend on skill or merit, in case of class IV servant and cannot be equated with grant of selection Grade by way of promotion on basis of merit or skill-Punishment of censure awarded to a constable does not affect grant of selection grade to him-Withdrawal of selection grade without notice held violative of natural justice, and contrary to material on record and shows non-application of mind-Order of withdrawal alongwith that of single judge upholding same set aside. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the judgment of learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Firstly, the judgment under appeal fails to take notice that the Selection Grade granted to the Class IV employee and Ministerial Staff in Subordinate offices does not involve any special skill or element of selection. We have referred to the notification dated 25. 1. 1992. The purpose of the scheme was to prevent stagnation within the members of service of lower category viz. , Class IV employees or Ministerial & Subordinate Services. The grant of selection grade is not dependent on availability of any limited number of posts within the cadre so as to form a separate class. Nor it involves a posts within the cadre so as to form a separate class. Nor it involves a restrictive selection or limited number of post by assessing comparative level of performance or seniority or availability of posts. The grant of selection scale follows the completion of service in the cadre for a number of years without getting any promotion to next higher post within that period. If these conditions are fulfilled, higher pay scale on the same post at the same place is granted like the cases before Supreme Court, relied on by learned Single Judge, such promotion is not referable to periodical exercise for selecting candidates to available selection scale post in the cadre. The grant of selection scale under order dated 25. 1. 1992 is akin to personal promotion scheme and a personal advancement in pay scale scheme without reference to anybody else. Therefore, it did not involve any element of selection or comparative merit and, therefore, the premise on the basis of which the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that because the petitioner suffered a punishment of censure, he was not entitled to be considered for selection scale which is a promotion by merit cannot be sustained. Further he has also relied upon a case of Baldev Ram vs. Delhi Development Authority, decided by the Delhi High Court, reported in 2004 (5) SLR Page 37 which reads as under:-      " 4. It was contended before me by counsel for the respondent that the advise of the Chief Vigilance Commission was sought to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. The Chief Vigilance Commission advised to initiate minor penalty proceedings against the petitioner. A minor penalty charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 6. 9. 2000. The petitioner was asked to tender his representation on the charges framed against him. After examining the case Vice Chairman of the DDA imposed penalty of censure as per the instructions of Government of India lid down in the CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules. Mr. Sapra also contended that another person S. K. Bhatt who was senior to the petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the departmental proceedings and on account of the pendency of the said writ petition also the selection grade was not given to the petitioner. 5. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties. I do not find force in the argument of counsel for the respondent that selection grade could have been denied to the petitioner for an incident which pertains 1991 and even if the penalty of censure is taken into consideration that cannot be a ground to deny the selection grade to the petitioner who had become Director in 1998. The penalty pertains to the period when the petitioner was Dy. Director in the year 1991. Non grant of selection grade by the respondent in spite of the recommendation of the DPC which was convened in 2000 was also contrary to the rules for grant of selection grade to the respondent itself. The plea of the respondent that in view of pendency of the writ petition which was filed by S. K. Bhat who was senior to the petitioner, selection grade was not granted to the petitioner is also of no consequence as there was no stay order granted by the Court. In my considered view, non-grant of selection grade for the period when the petitioner was admittedly officiating as Director (Horticulture) from February 1998 was on frivolous ground. ;