S.B. C. Writ Petition No. 871/2010. (Hari Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.) Date of Order: 07/04/2010. HON'BLE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. Mr DP Sharma, for the petitioner. The contention of the learned consel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant (TRA) on 29.10.79, he was thereupon selected in fresh recruitment and joined on the post of Junior Accountant on 4.8.1981. Vide circular dated 25.1.92 as notified on 17.2.98 and w.e.f. 1.9.96. The petitioner was entitled to count the period of services from the date of initial appointment as TRA. The learned counsel in support of his submission has cited the judgment of this Court in Ramanand Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ars., DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 717/08 decided on 1.5.09 to argue that the appointment of the petitioner would be considered on the same post because the post of TRA and that of the Jr. Accountant carries the same nature of duties and same pay scale also. The learned counsel in this connection referred to Para 3 of the circular dated 17.2.98 especially proviso third and contended that the employees who have been selected on the same post in another department then the services of the employees would be counted from the initial appointment and since the post of Jr. Accountant carries the same pay scale, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to count the service period rendered by him as TRA for the purpose of selection scale. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the aforesaid circular dated 17.2.98, especially the first proviso to Para-3, I find that according to the said proviso, even if an employee subsequent to his first appointment to a post in a cadre/service, as a result of direct recruitment, is appointed to some other post in the same cadre or other cadre, service from the date of latter appointment shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of selection scale. The third proviso on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to his case because that proviso requires appointment in any other cadre or service on the same post and on the same post for this purpose would be meant having the same pay scale. In the case on which reliance has been placed the petitioner served in the Department of Family Planning and he was transferred to Social Social Welfare Department, and therefore, it is distinguishable. In the present case, the petitioner is neither transferred from one Department to another nor being declared successful and then absorbed in other department. It is a case where he secured fresh appointment in another department on a post with another designation and therefore, he cannot be allowed to complain of stagnation, if he is not granted promotion within 9 years in the latter department. The case is squarely covered by first proviso to Para 3 of the Circular dated 17.2.98 and in my view, the action of the respondents cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. Gandhi/-P.A. Item no. 51