1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1344/2005. : : Prabhu Dayal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : : Date of Order 22.8.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Ashish Joshi for the petitioner. Mr.B.L.Avasthi, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to give actual benefit of revision of pay in computing the subsistence allowance paid to him from 6.10.1979 to 12.5.1986 and the respondents be directed to give benefit of revised pay scales rules and also the selection scales w.e.f. the date on which he completed 9, 18 & 27 years of service. The first claim does not survive because of the order of the competent authority passed against him, which was separately challenged by him in the writ petition and thereafter in special appeal, which were dismissed against him. The second claim also does not survive because the respondents have now produced copy of the service book of the petitioner showing that his pay has already been fixed in 2 revised pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 at Rs.1840/- with next grade of increment. The only dispute that survives is about the third selection scale, on completion of 27 years of service. Shri Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner could not be denied that selection scale on the ground of penalty of two grade increments because that was eventually set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Enquiry Officer and on remand the Enquiry Officer has though found the charges proved and thereafter submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority but no penalty was imposed because the petitioner was already retired on 31.1.1994 by the time when the order was passed on 9.1.1995. Learned counsel argued that since the Disciplinary Authority merely passed the order dated 9.1.1995 for withholding of other allowances except the subsistence allowance received by the petitioner with the further stipulation that the period of suspension shall be counted for the purpose of pension. It was also submitted that the petitioner on the basis of very same service record was promoted on 12.8.1992 from UDC to Office Assistant. Mr.B.L.Avasthi, learned Additional Government 3 Counsel contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that selection scale could not be granted to the petitioner because of non-satisfactory service and adverse record. The learned Govt.Counsel submitted that benefit of selection grade in terms of Government Circular dated 25.1.1992 is not automatic and it is granted to the employees whose service is satisfactory. The petitioner having already been promoted on 12.8.1992 immediately before his date of retirement on 31.1.1994, even otherwise, he cannot claim selection scale. In view of the fact that this benefit of revised pay scale has already been granted to the petitioner, the claim with regard to that relief stands set aside. However, the action of the respondents in not granting him benefit of selection scale due to non-satisfactory service record cannot be faulted because the circular of the Government which provides that an employee is disentitled for selection scale in case his services are found not satisfactory would be condition for grant of benefit. In the result, this writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/-