Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By this petition, petitioner has sought direction to State Government (respondents) for grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years service pursuant to Government Circular dated 25/01/1992, 2. Petitioner joined service as LDC in 1961 and retired from service in November, 1997 but despite being eligible was not granted selection scale during his service career. However, it is an admitted case that while working as LDC in the year 1979, some delinquency was committed by him, for which he was served with charge-sheet Under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ("CCA Rules") vide memo dated 23/05/1984; and after holding regular inquiry, he was dismissed from service under orders of disciplinary authority dated 112.1986, against which he preferred appeal Under Rule 23 of CCA Rules, which was partly allowed by appellate authority vide order dated 24/12/1986 (Annexure 1) and while upholding his guilt, converted penalty into stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect instead of dismissal from service, but with further rider that he would not be promoted in future. After reinstatement in service pursuant thereto, he was directed to deposit Rs. 22,295.93p., vide order dated 12/02/1988 (Annexure 2), which was challenged in CWP No. 939/88 and this Court set aside the order (Annexure 2) vide order dated 20.03.1997 (Annexure 3). After undergoing long litigation, petitioner retired from service on attaining superannuation age on 30.11.1997. 3. Case of petitioner is that earlier because of pendency of departmental inquiry and later on pendency of writ petition against order (Annexure 2) of illegal recovery of Rs. 22,295.93p, his case was not considered for grant of selection scale and more so after order (Annexure 1) of penalty inflicted by appellate authority, the State Government presumed that since petitioner has been debarred from further promotion, he will not be entitled for selection scale in pursuance to circular dated 25.01.1992. Before and after retirement from service petitioner made representations for grant of selection scale which accrued pursuant to Circular dated 25.01.1992 on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years services, but all in vain, hence this writ petition was filed on 211.1999 and this Court vide order dated 112.2000 admitted the petition for hearing. 4. Before and after retirement from service petitioner made representations for grant of selection scale which accrued pursuant to Circular dated 25.01.1992 on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years services, but all in vain, hence this writ petition was filed on 211.1999 and this Court vide order dated 112.2000 admitted the petition for hearing. 4. Shri Sanjay Pareek, Counsel for petitioner urged that in view of Circular dated 25.01.1992 for grant of selection scale, an employee became entitled for first selection scale on completion of 9 years service from the date of initial appointment and for grant of second selection scale, on completion of 18 years service from the date of initial appointment, as stipulated in Clause 3 of the said Circular; and petitioner completed his 9 years service in 1970 and 18 years service in 1979; and charge-sheet was issued to him on 23.05.1984 while order of punishment was passed on 112.1985, therefore, even otherwise, eligibility for grant of first & second selection scales has to be computed and considered on the basis of service record of first nine years from the date of initial appointment and so also of 18 years service from initial appointment and there was no impediment for granting first and second selection scales in case of present petitioner and thus the punishment inflicted upon him vide order dated 212.1986 cannot be made operative retrospectively to cause prejudice to his right, which he had already accrued on completion of 9 and 18 years of satisfactory service. In this regard, the Counsel has placed reliance upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, 1998 (3) WLC (Raj) 1. 5. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition, and raised preliminary objection that writ petition has been filed at belated stage, which deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. So far as merit of claim is concerned, only justification pointed out by respondents is that once petitioner was inflicted with penalty vide order dated 212.1986 (Annexure 1), with a rider that he would not be promoted in future and grant of selection has been provided pursuant to Circular dated 25.01.1992 is in lieu of promotion and he will not be entitled for grant of selection scale in lieu thereof . 6. I have considered submission made by Counsel for parties and pondered over material on record. 6. I have considered submission made by Counsel for parties and pondered over material on record. It is undisputed fact on record that except penalty inflicted upon petitioner vide order dated 212.1986 (Annexure 1), rest of his service record is clean and unblemished and no adversity was ever communicated to him by which an inference can be drawn that services rendered by petitioner prior to infliction of penalty were satisfactory. 7. Upon a perusal of Circular dated 25.01.1992, I find that its Clause 3 makes the incumbent entitled for grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years service which shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre. Admittedly, petitioner was initially appointed as LDC in 1961 and pursuant to Circular dated 25.01.1992, he was entitled for grant of first selection scale on completion of 9 years service to be counted from the date of first appointment and so also for second selection scale on completion of 18 years service from the date of first appointment, which the petitioner completed in 1970 and 1979 and thus was entitled for grant of first and second selection scales pursuant to Circular dated 25.01.1992, and before he completed 27 years service, penalty was inflicted upon him vide order dated 212.1986 (Annexure 1). 8. Circular dated 25.01.1992 was introduced by State Government for grant of selection scales on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years service, with an object to provide relief to employees who are not having promotional avenues and facing stagnation in service; and as per the Circular, first selection scale is to be granted from the date following the day on which one completes service of 9 years, and similarly, second selection case is to be granted from the date following the day on which one completes service of 18 years and so also after 27 years. 9. It is not case of respondents that petitioner was not having satisfactory service record or earlier he was superseded at any point of time, while promotions were accorded under relevant Rule of recruitment. 9. It is not case of respondents that petitioner was not having satisfactory service record or earlier he was superseded at any point of time, while promotions were accorded under relevant Rule of recruitment. This very controversy was examined by this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, (Supra) at para 8, which reads as under:- "A conjoint reading of all paragraphs of the Circular makes it clear without any doubt that an employee who completes 9 years of service from the date of his first appointment in the existing cadre becomes entitled to get first selection grade, provided his service record is satisfactory. Thus, he becomes eligible to get first Selection Grade on completion of 9 years service, as such, his service record to judge his suitability for granting first Selection Grade could be of that period and not that of later period. Similar shall be the position while examining suitability for second and third Selection Grades on completion of 18 and 27 years of service. The date of Order/Circular i.e. 25.01.1992 prescribes grant of Selection Grades and entitlement of the employees. The eligibility to get first, second and third Selection Grades is completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Hence, suitability for grant has to be judged accordingly and the APARs of the preceding years when one becomes eligible to get first, second and third selection grade, are relevant. The contention that seven years satisfactory service record should be examined from the date of Order/Circular i.e. 25.01.1992 cannot be accepted as this date is not the date of eligibility. If interpretation, as contended by Shri Gupta is accepted, it would lead to absurdity and serious anomaly. For example, an employee who had already completed 27 years of service on 25.01.1992, having only one adverse entry in the year 1990, before he completed 27 years of service, would be denied all the three selection grades. In other words, in that situation he shall not be entitled to get first and second selection grades and fixation as per the circular, though his service record for 18 years from the date of his appointment may be unblemished and exemplary. This cannot be intention of the circular, nor the various paragraphs of the circular, if read jointly and harmoniously, lead to such conclusion. This cannot be intention of the circular, nor the various paragraphs of the circular, if read jointly and harmoniously, lead to such conclusion. Similarly, if 7 years service record is examined from 25.01.1992 for judging suitability of an employee to get benefit of selection grades, there may be cases where preceding seven years record from 25.01.1992 may be good but prior to it highly blame-worthy. In that situation also, he shall be entitled to get benefit of all the three selection grades and fixation if Mr. Guptas submission is accepted. Then, if this interpretation is accepted, an employee shall be entitled to get benefit under the order, in spite of the fact that his preceding service record is good but after it becomes highly unsatisfactory. The Tribunal has rightly observed while rejecting the contention, "now one can be granted three selection grades on the basis of the same 7 years service record and when some adversity is there that adversity would debar him from all the three selection grades on the same basis. This cannot be the intention of the notification dated 25.01.1992". 10. In view of decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Kuldeep Singh Chauhan (Supra), petitioner became entitled for grant of first & second selection scale on completion of 9 & 18 years service but will not be entitled for third selection scale on completion of 27 years service for the reason that in intervening 9 years service before completion of 27 years after 18 years service, he was inflicted with penalty in disciplinary inquiry vide order dated 212.1986, which debars him from future promotion and certainly in terms of Clause 7 of Circular dated 25.01.1992, record of service for grant of third selection scale even otherwise cannot be said to be satisfactory, which is one of conditions precedents for grant of selection scale in lieu of promotion in case of stagnation in service. 11. It is true that ordinarily writ petition in service matters must be filed expeditiously. Delay coupled with silence on the part of a petitioner disentitles him from invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Normally relief should be refused in exercise of writ jurisdiction on the ground of delay and laches when rights of third parties have come into existence and the delay has resulted in unsettling the settled position. Delay coupled with silence on the part of a petitioner disentitles him from invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Normally relief should be refused in exercise of writ jurisdiction on the ground of delay and laches when rights of third parties have come into existence and the delay has resulted in unsettling the settled position. However, it is settled principle of law that there is no lower or upper limit of period within which a writ petition filed can be entertained, as has been held in Tilok Chand Moti Chand vs. H.B. Munsi, AIR 1970 SC 898 , Ramchandra S. Devdhar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 259 , wherein the Apex Court held that relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India could not be denied on jejune ground of delay and laches unless rights of third parties have intervened in the meantime. 12. In present case, I find that after circular dated 25.01.1992 was introduced, it was incumbent upon the Government, itself , to consider case of petitioner for grant of selection scale in terms of its Clauses 3 & 7 on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years service from the date of first appointment. Since, respondents failed to discharge its legal duty, which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court. It is also to be noticed that in case of petitioner, rights of third parties have also not intervened on account of passage of time and if respondents failed to discharge their obligation, their inaction will not non-suit the petitioner from seeking relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, preliminary objection stands rejected. 13. Upshot of above discussion is that writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant first & second selection scales to the petitioner on completion of his 9 and 18 years service from the date of his first appointment, in terms of Circular dated 25.01.1992 with all consequential benefits. All exercise to comply with aforesaid direction for requisite fixation of pay and computation of arrears and its payment, be made within three months, failing which petitioner will be entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., on the arrears from the date of its accrual till actual payment whereof . No order as to costs.