DHEERAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by Petitioner challenging action of Respondents in delaying grant of second selection grade in terms of Government circular dated 25.1.1992 by two years.

(2.) MR . Amit Jindal, learned Counsel for Petitioner has contended that Respondents have granted him second selection scale after delay of two years though it became due to him on 04.10.2000. As a result of this, Petitioner would be getting second selection scale on 14.10.2002. Learned Counsel argued that grant of selection scale cannot be equated with promotion. Learned Counsel relied on Division Bench judgment of this Court in Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2004 WLC (Raj.) 327 and argued that selection grade only confers higher pay in same post and is intended to prevent stagnation. Division Bench in said case has held that censure cannot be made basis for withdrawal of selection scale granted. It is, therefore, prayed that action of Respondents in delaying grant of selection scale to Petitioner by two years be held to be illegal and Respondents be directed to grant him second selection scale with effect from 04.10.2000 instead of 14.10.2002.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for parties and perused material available on record and also Division Bench judgment in Devi Singh (supra), I find that Division Bench considered this very question in context of withdrawal of selection grade already granted. In that case too, selection grade was withdrawn because of punishment awarded to a constable. In present case also, Respondents are seeking to delay grant of selection scale to Petitioner on account of penalties of censure apart from one penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment. Division Bench observed that grant of selection scale could not be equated with promotion as selection scale has to be granted to every person on completion of specified period of service without having any promotion. It is a personal amelioration scheme which is intended to prevent stagnation of employees of lower echelons of service who have not got any promotion before 9, 18 & 27 years of their service, as the case may be. In para Nos. 19 to 21, it was observed that: