JUDGMENT 1. - On early hearing application moved by the learned counsel for the appellant, we have heard this appeal by allowing the application. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 14.2.2000 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 400/2000 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant at admission stage without issuing notice to the respondents. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in RAC on 15.1.1965 and he is continuing as a Constable. By the order dated 25.1.1992, the Government of Rajasthan 10 extended the benefit of Selection Scale to all the Government servants in Class IV, Ministerial & Subordinate Services and those holding isolated posts and drawing pay in revised Pay Scale 1989, the maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 3200/- 4. The petitioner has fulfilled all these conditions. The benefits of selection scale were to be granted at three stages. Firstly, the Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes nine years of service provided that the employee has not got one promotion earlier as is available in the existing cadre. Secondly, the Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes eighteen years of service, provided that the employee has not got two promotions earlier as might be available in the existing cadre and the first Selection Grade granted to him was lower than the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. Lastly, the Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one complete twenty seven years of service, provided that the employee has not got three promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first or the second Selection Grade granted to him as the case may be, was lower than the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. 5. Apparently, as per his appointment dated 15.1.1965, the appellant has completed twenty seven years of service on 15.1.1992 and he was eligible for grant of third Selection Grade. He was allowed the Selection Grade with effect from 15.1.1992 vide order dated 13.11.1992. 6. Meanwhile, the petitioner-appellant was visited with the punishment of censure vide order dated 13.5.1992 (Annexure 5). 5. Apparently, as per his appointment dated 15.1.1965, the appellant has completed twenty seven years of service on 15.1.1992 and he was eligible for grant of third Selection Grade. He was allowed the Selection Grade with effect from 15.1.1992 vide order dated 13.11.1992. 6. Meanwhile, the petitioner-appellant was visited with the punishment of censure vide order dated 13.5.1992 (Annexure 5). The order reveals that while he was on night duty along with four other guards on 1.12.1991 at Bairick, a mirror which was purchased in 1974 at the rate of Rs. 48/- was stolen and a departmental enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958) was initiated against him and it was found that the said mirror which was purchased in 1974 at the rate of Rs. 48/- was currently to valued at Rs. 310/-. The show cause notice was given on 29.1.1992 i.e to say after the date third Selection Grade became applicable and after the notification dated 25.1.1992 was issued with direction to recover Rs. 62/- from each of the five guards on duty and a minor punishment of censure was imposed, vide order dated 13.5.1992. 7. This order was very much there when the order dated 13.11.1992 was made. However, vide order dated 10.8.1998 the Selection Grade given to the appellant-petitioner with effect from 15.1.1992 was withdrawn without any notice to the petitioner-appellant and instead of this date it was advanced to 25.1.1993. 8. Aggrieved with the order dated 10.8.1998 an appeal before Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal. Jodhpur was filed by the petitioner-appellant. By its order dated 18.9.1999, the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal rejected the said appeal on the ground that because the appellant has suffered with the punishment of censure, he was not entitled to Selection Grade and it was a clerical mistake which was committed inadvertently and bonafidely while granting him Selection Grade, ignoring the punishment awarded to the appellant petitioner after holding an enquiry under Rule 17 in accordance with the Rules of 1958 needs to be corrected and no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the appellant before withdrawing that order 9. This led to filing of the writ petition challenging the order of the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal dated 18.9.1999 as well as the order dated 10.8.1998 withdrawing the grant of Selection Grade with effect from 15.1.1992 and advancing the date of 25.1.1993. 10. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal relying on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jag Mohan, AIR 1981 SC 136 that when on the admitted facts no other view was possible except that the petitioner-appellant was not entitled to the Selection Grade as on the date it was granted to him, the court may not interfere in its discretion, even if the order is in breach of principles of natural justice, as an exception to principle that breach of principles of natural justice before making an order affecting civil rights itself is sufficient prejudice, which calls for interference. 11. In coming to this conclusion, the learned Single Judge has been greatly influenced by the principle that grant of the Selection Grade involves an element of selection and it is not an automatic promotion to the Selection Grade pay scale on seniority but this is for the reason that higher pay scale is granted on the same post and, therefore, any adverse entry in the service record or any punishment can prevent the candidate from availing the benefit of: election Grade. For this purpose, the learned Single Judge relied on the so decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India v. S.S. Ranadey, (1995) 4 SCC 462 . The learned Single Judge also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dayaram Ashanand Gursahani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 850 wherein it was held that the Selection Grade is to be given purely on merit if the selection grade post constitutes a separate cadre and involves an element of selection. The learned Single Judge has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand Soni, (1996) 1 SCC 562 in which it has been held that as promotion includes advancement to a higher position, grade or honour, or preferment in honour, dignity, rank or grade, it not only covers advancement to higher post or rank but also implies advancement to a higher grade. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 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 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 services 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. 13. In this connection, our attention was invited to the case of Smt. Pushplata Thada & 41 Ors., Western Law Cases (Rajasthan) 2001 (2) Page 560 passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court referring to the scheme. 13. In this connection, our attention was invited to the case of Smt. Pushplata Thada & 41 Ors., Western Law Cases (Rajasthan) 2001 (2) Page 560 passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court referring to the scheme. The Division Bench said that the Government of Rajasthan issued an order dated 25.1.1992 providing benefit of grant of selection grade for employee in Class IVth, Ministerial & Subordinate Services on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service in cases of Government employees who are not granted one, two and three promotions during the aforesaid period respectively. According to the petitioner, a perusal of the order dated 25.1.1992 it is crystal clear that as per Clause-3 of the said order, all employees, irrespective of their nature of service who have rendered 9, 18 & 27 years of service, as the case may be, their total length of service shall be counted in their existing cadre/service for the purpose of grant of selection grade and there is no exception either way in the circular dated 25.1.1992 so making out distinction between Government employee among whom it is applicable. So far as the matter before Division Bench in Thada's case there was no exception either way making out distinction for grant of selection grade to trained or untrained teachers. On the contrary, the circular contemplates one and only one situation which is to be considered that whosoever completed 9, 18 & 27 years of service, he or she became entitled to grant of selection grade as a matter of course. 14. The court also noticed that the benefit of circular dated 25.1.1992 s granting Selection Grade to trained or untrained teachers on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service was withdrawn in view of circular dated 27.7.1995 giving out that the benefit of Selection Grade is not applicable to untrained teachers which has resulted in the impugned order withdrawing Selection Scales given to the untrained teachers. The court not only quashed the impugned circular dated 27.7.1995 but also held that the withdrawal of Selection Grade is not proper without issuing notice to the affected parties. The court not only quashed the impugned circular dated 27.7.1995 but also held that the withdrawal of Selection Grade is not proper without issuing notice to the affected parties. The court directed that "the petitioners in all these cases shall be entitled for grant of selection grade and after having granted the selection grade, in accordance with the instructions issued by the department, the selection grade will be issued without issuing any show cause notice to any of the petitioners after five years of such sanction. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Annama Chako v. State & Ors. (supra), as it involves the basic rights, involving civil consequences, the Selection Grade could not have been withdrawn except by issuing show cause notice. 15. The court, therefore, held that the action of the respondents was violative of principles of natural justice and could not be sustained in the eyes of law. It was made clear that as the impugned action of the Government in each case was quashed, the respondents were not permitted to initiate recovery proceedings. In case, any recovery had already been made, the recovered amount was directed to be refunded to the petitioner concerned. When it was brought to notice of the court that on account of the impugned circular, the pay scale has been reduced to some of the petitioners, the pay scale was also directed to be revised to those teachers whose pay structure has been reduced in view of the impugned circular and the arrears were ordered to be paid to the concerned petitioners within three months from the receipt of certified copy of the order" 16. In view of the aforesaid decision of this court, the learned Single Judge was clearly in error in refusing to interfere with the order passed in breach of principles of natural justice. As a matter of fact, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed on this ground atone. 17. In view of the aforesaid decision of this court, the learned Single Judge was clearly in error in refusing to interfere with the order passed in breach of principles of natural justice. As a matter of fact, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed on this ground atone. 17. We have already noticed above that the decision in each of the cases relied upon by the learned Single Judge referred to grant of Selection Scale to certain posts within the cadre by way of promotion requiring special skill and involves element of selection before grant of Selection Scale to the incumbent and could not be equated with the grant of Selection Scale to every person on completion of a specified period in service without having any promotion. It is a personal amelioration scheme which is intended to prevent stagnation of the 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. 18. In Dayaram Ashanand Gursahani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 850 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that the Selection Grade s to be given purely on merit if the selection post constitutes a separate cadre and involves an element of selection. Admittedly, Selection Grade given to the employees by circular dated 25.1.1992 neither constitutes a separate cadre nor involves an element of selection. 19. Likewise, Union of India v. S.S. Ranadey, (1995) 4 SCC 462 was a case in which promotion to the Selection Scale was not automatic and personal to incumbent but involved an element of selection and higher pay scale was restricted to certain number of posts. Admittedly, this case also cannot be applicable for considering the grant of Selection Scale to the employees in Class IVth Ministerial and Subordinate Services. Likewise, in State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand Soni, (1996) 1 SCC 562 it has been held that the Selection Scale could not be granted without considering the suitability and merit of the employee. The case of Lalit Mohan v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1972 SC 995 was a case in which the Pay Commission has recommended that a certain percentage of the posts in the grade, usually 10 per cent should carry a somewhat higher scale of pay even though there will be no change in the duties. The case of Lalit Mohan v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1972 SC 995 was a case in which the Pay Commission has recommended that a certain percentage of the posts in the grade, usually 10 per cent should carry a somewhat higher scale of pay even though there will be no change in the duties. Following the terminology in vogue these posts have been described as selection grade posts. With this background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that it is well recognised that a promotion post is a higher post with a higher pay. A selection grade has higher pay but in the same post. A selection grade is intended to ensure that capable employees who may not get a chance of promotion on account of limited outlets of promotions should at least be placed in the selection grade to prevent stagnation on the maximum of the scale and are therefore, created in the interest of greater efficiency. 20. The present is not a case of that nature. It is not dependent on the availability of certain percentage of posts in the higher pay scale but it is for those who have not received any promotion for many years on the basis of completion of number of years of service. In these circumstances, the extension of principles that the Selection Scale under the circular dated 25.1.1992 involves an element of selection for discharging higher duties or more efficient duties and being restrictive in nature, cannot be accepted as right premise for deciding the controversy before us. 21. Admittedly, the petitioner had completed twenty seven year of service on 15.1.1992 as on the date no notice has been issued to the petitioner. We have already noticed the charge with which the petitioner was subjected to be punished. In these circumstances, in our opinion and the background of the incident for which he was awarded the punishment of censure did not affect at all his suitability for the post which he was holding to carry selection scale on completion of minimum number of years of service. It may be noticed that the order has been passed as late as on 13.11.1992 after the issuance of circular dated 25.1.1992 and on the completion of twenty seven years of service during which there was no blemish on his service. It may be noticed that the order has been passed as late as on 13.11.1992 after the issuance of circular dated 25.1.1992 and on the completion of twenty seven years of service during which there was no blemish on his service. Therefore, the passing of the censure order subsequent to 15.1.1992 or 25.1.1992 in our opinion, shall otherwise have no effect on the grant of selection scale in the case of the petitioner, which was otherwise to be due to him on 15.1.1992. 22. Emphasis has been laid on the issuance of first circular making the punishment of censure not to come in the way of grant of selection grade and later on withdrawal by the Director General of Police. The said circular in our opinion, is hardly relevant in the context of controversy before us. The withdrawal of selection grade with effect from 15.1.1992 by the impugned order is wholly without application of mind, in breach of principles of natural justice and also if we may say so, contrary to the material on record as on the date with effect from which the petitioner became entitled to selection scale. There was no reason which could have otherwise prevented the authorities to withdraw the selection grade with effect from the completion of twenty seven years of service and make the advancement of the selection s grade by one year. 23. In the totality of the circumstances, we see no ground to sustain the impugned order (Ex.3) passed by Commandant, 1st Battalion, R.A.C. and consequently the order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal as well as the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be to sustained. 24. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment under appeal is set aside. The Writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Tribunal as well as the impugned order is quashed. The amount recovered, if any, from the petitioner shall be refunded to him. 25. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Allowed - Impugned Order and Order of Single Judge Set Aside. *******