Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The instant writ petition has been filed by the State against the order dated 111.2002 (Annexure-2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan-Jaipur (Bench at Jodhpur) in Appeal No. T.149./2002 {1077/2002} (Sushree Dhanwanti Devani vs. Director, Technical Department & Ors.) with a prayer that the impugned order dated 111.2002 (Annexure-2) passed by the Tribunal qua the appellant (present petitioner) may be quashed and set aside and the amendment order dated 30.3.2002 passed by the Director, Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur May be maintained. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this instant writ petition are as follows: Respondent-Dhanwanti Dewani (claimant) filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter refereed to as the "Tribunal") praying therein that the order dated 30.03.2002 qua the appellant may be quashed and the respondents may be restrained from effecting recovery from her salary in pursuance to the order dated 30.03.2002 and to uphold the order dated 17.05.1997 and to declare that the appellant was rightly granted the selection grade while taking into account her initial date of appointment, with all consequential benefits. 3. It was alleged in the memo of the appeal of the claimant the she was initially appointed on the post of L.D.C. vide order dated 12.01.1979 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur. Later on, she passed the Departmental Examination, and was granted the regular grade increment of completion of one year. Thereafter, she was declared successful in the examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission under Rule 24 (4) of the Rules of 1957. She was then posted as L.D.C. pursuant to the above selection on 20.9.1980 and after being relieved from the Police Department on 19.09.1980, she joined on 20.09.1980 in the office of Director, Technical Education, Jodhpur. Her services were made substantive vide order dated 02.01.1984. She was granted regular annual grade increments and her pay continued to be revised under the revised pay scale rules from time to time. She was also promoted to the post of U.D.C. vide order dated 12.1990. 4. The provisions of selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years service were enforced by Notification dated 25.01.1992. issued by the Finance Department. She was, therefore, allowed selection grade on completion of 18 years of service as on 12.01.1997 vide order dated 17.05.1997. She was also promoted to the post of U.D.C. vide order dated 12.1990. 4. The provisions of selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years service were enforced by Notification dated 25.01.1992. issued by the Finance Department. She was, therefore, allowed selection grade on completion of 18 years of service as on 12.01.1997 vide order dated 17.05.1997. It was also alleged in the memo of the appeal filed by the claimant-respondent before the Service Tribunal that the service tenure of the employee should be counted from the date of initial entry in the service, irrespective of the fact whether the appointment was temporary or regular. 5. The Department passed the order on 30.03.2002, whereby her selection grade was sought to he revised and instead of granting the selection grade w.e.f. 12.01.1997, it was ordered to be granted w.e.f. 20.09.1980. 6. Aggrieved against the order dated 30.03.2002, the non-petitioner-claimant filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The appeal of the respondent (claimant) was decided vide order dated 111.2002, whereby the Tribunal accepted the appeal of the respondent (claimant) and quashed the order of the department dated 30.03.2002 and restored the order dated 17.05.1997 and declared that order dated 17.05.1997 is legal and the respondent (claimant) is entitled to be selection grade w.e.f. the date of initial appointment i.e. 12.01.1979, rather than regular selection through R.P.S.C. It was further directed by the Tribunal that no recovery in pursuance to the order dated 30.03.2002 be made, and, in case, if any recovery has been made, the same shall be returned to the respondent (claimant) within a period of two months. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and scanned the entire record with respect to the finding of the Tribunal. 9. It is an admitted position on record that the non-petitioner claimant Ms. Dhanvanti Devani was initially appointed vide order dated 12.01.1979 on the post of L.D.C. by the Competent Authority on urgent temporary basis under the provision of Rajasthan Subordinate Civil Services Rules, 1957 in the regular pay scale of Rs. 355-570 at minimum pay of Rs. 355/-Later on, all the benefits were extended to the respondent (claimant) from time to time. The respondent was confirmed vide order dated 02.01.1984 and was granted regular annual grade increments. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of U.D.C. vide order dated 12.1990. 355-570 at minimum pay of Rs. 355/-Later on, all the benefits were extended to the respondent (claimant) from time to time. The respondent was confirmed vide order dated 02.01.1984 and was granted regular annual grade increments. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of U.D.C. vide order dated 12.1990. She was granted selection grade on completion of 18 years of service vide order dated 17.05.1997 as the service tenure is required to be counted from the date of initial appointment, irrespective of the fact that the appointment was temporary or ad hoc. But the Department vide its order dated 30.03.2002 revised the selection grade and granted the same w.e.f. 20.09.1980 instead of 12.01.1979. 10. I have perused the Judgment rendered by the Larger Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 58/2004 State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Farooq Ahmed & 59 Ors. 11. This controversy regarding extending the selection grade was set at rest by the Larger Bench, wherein it has been observed that where a person is appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis in accordance with rules and in time-scale, period of ad hoc/temporary services rendered by him before his regularisation should be counted for purpose of grant of selection grade on completion of 9,18 and 27 years of service. 12. I have scanned facts and circumstances of the present writ petition as well as the decision of the Larger Bench rendered in the State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Farooq Ahmed & Ors., reported in 2005 (1) RDD 386 (Raj.) [Full Bench] = 2005 (1) WLC page 1 (Raj.) decided on 010.2004. This Controversy has been set at rest while taking into consideration a series of decisions of the Honble the Supreme Court as well as of other High Courts. vs. Farooq Ahmed & Ors., reported in 2005 (1) RDD 386 (Raj.) [Full Bench] = 2005 (1) WLC page 1 (Raj.) decided on 010.2004. This Controversy has been set at rest while taking into consideration a series of decisions of the Honble the Supreme Court as well as of other High Courts. I have also scanned the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services Rules and different notifications which have been issued by the State Government from time to time to extend the benefit of selection grade to the employees of Subordinate Services and reached to the conclusion that when a person has been appointed under the provisions of Service Rules whether temporary or ad hoc and getting all the benefits, for the purpose of giving selection grade, years of service would be counted for grant, years of service would be counted for grant of the selection Grade from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre. 13. The larger Bench while dealing with the fact of that case also interpreted "Regular Appointment" and observed as under:-"...... to mean an appointment in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules to the post. In other words, if the appointment was in accordance with the rules, it was to be counted for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade. Thus, "Regular appointment whether temporary/ad hoc or of any nature, in order to be rules. 14. In the present case, it is significant to note that the respondent (claimant) was appointed on the post of L.D.C. w.e.f. 12.01.1979. She was also granted increments from time to time. She passed the test conducted by R.P.S.C. This being the position, there is no reason why her services should not be counted for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade from the date of her initial appointment. 15. Having carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the respondents entry in the service was not a back door entry. She was appointed after due selection process on a permanent vacant post. Merely because the nomenclature given in her appointment order that her appointment was purely on temporary ad hoc basis, it does not come in the way of granting her Selection Grade from the date of initial appointment. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 16. There is a letter dated 17.01.2001 sent by the Dy. Secretary, DOP, (K-2) Department Jaipur to the Director, Technical Education-Directorate, Jodhpur, in response to his letter dated 112.2000 regarding regularisation of the LDCs appointed on ad hoc basis from 011.1975 to 31.03.1990, in which it is specifically stated that the date of regular appointment of ad hoc/temporary appointed LDCs will be taken into consideration not from the date of their initial appointment, but from the date of their passing the test or from the date of issuing orders for their regularisation. The letter dated 17.01.2001 reads as under:- *mi;Dr fo"k;kUrxZr vkids i= dzekad i-l- 3 ¼ ½@iz & 2@2000@36460 fnukad 18-12-2000 ds lUnHkZ easfunskkuqlkj ys[k gS fd bl foHkkx ds }kjk fofHkUu vf /klwpukvksa ftuds rgr rnFkZ@vko;d vLFkkbZ :i ls fu;Dr dfu"B fyfidksa dks fu;ekUrxZr n{krk ijh{kk mRrh.kZ djus ij] mRrh.kZ djus dh fnukad ls vFkok qsqfu;fefrdj.k vknsk tkjh djus dh fnukad ls fu;fer fu;fDr ekuh tk;xh u fd izFke@rnFkZ fu;fDr fnukad ls** 17. The main thrust of argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-department is that the aforesaid letter has not been taken into consideration by the Larger Bench in Farooq Ahmeds case (Supra) with regard to the counting of years for giving Selection Grade to the employees. It is pertinent to point out here that it has been specifically stated in the aforesaid letter that the benefit of Selection Grade should be extended from the date of regularisation or from the date of passing the test. 18. The contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not survive, in view of the decision rendered by the larger Bench as refereed to above, which has categorically determined this controversy with reference to all the provisions of Subordinate Civil Services rules as well as the letter issued by the State Government. 19. It may be mentioned that on February 17, 1998, the Government of Rajasthan, in supersession of all past orders on the subject, issued a fresh order, prescribing Selection Grade to the employees. 19. It may be mentioned that on February 17, 1998, the Government of Rajasthan, in supersession of all past orders on the subject, issued a fresh order, prescribing Selection Grade to the employees. The order which is relevant to the extent, is reproduced below: "With a view to providing relief to the employees in Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services and those holding isolated posts, three selection Grades on completion of services on nine, eighteen and twenty seven years were prescribed vide this Department Order No.F. 20 (1) FD/(Gr.2)/ 92 dated 25.01.1992. This order was amended from time to time, Consequent upon revision of pay scale of the State Government employees from 01.09.1996 under Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998, the matter has been considered and in supersession of all orders issued in this regard in the past, the Governor has been pleased to order that the Government servants of the categories mentioned hereunder and who are drawing pay in the pay scales prescribed under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998 may be granted Selection Grades as indicated below: 1. This order shall be applicable to all Government servants in Class-IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services and those holding isolated posts and drawing pay in Revised Pay Scales, 1998, the maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 10,500/-. This order shall not apply to Government servants in the State Services as defined in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and to those who have got selection grade equivalent to the pay scales of the lowest post of State Service to which they are eligible for promotion or selection grade of 8000-13500 whichever is lower in terms of this order. 2. (i) The first Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of nine years, provided that the employee has not got one promotion earlier as is available in his existing cadre. 2. (i) The first Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of nine years, provided that the employee has not got one promotion earlier as is available in his existing cadre. (ii) The second Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of eighteen years, provided that the employees has not got two promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first Selection Grade granted to him was lower than the pay scale of the lowest post of State Services to which he is eligible for promotion of selection grade of 8000-13500 whichever is lower. (iii) The third Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service or twenty seven years, 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 the lowest post of State Service to which he is eligible for promotion or selection grade of 8000-13500 whichever is lower. 3. The service of nine, eighteen or twenty seven years, as the case may be shall be counted from the date of first regular appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the recruitment rules. The period during which a Government servant remained/remains on extraordinary leave with or without medical certificate shall also be counted for reckoning the period of service for grant of selection grade.: Provided that 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 any other cadre, service from the date of latter appointment shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade; Provided further that if an employee subsequent to his first appointment to a post in a cadre/service, in accordance with provisions contained in the relevant service rules, is promoted to a post in some other cadre, then in such a case service from the date of promotion shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade. "Grant of Selection Grade shall not affect the seniority in the cadre not the sanctioned strength of each category of posts in the cadre.” 20. Thus, in this view of the matter, she is entitled to get the benefit of Selection Grade only from the date of her initial appointment and not from the date of regularisation of her services. In such a situation, the letter of the Deputy Secretary, DOP, Jaipur does not survive and has no effect in the instant petition. 21. In view of the position discussed above, I do not find any substance in this writ petition as the writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment rendered by the larger Bench of this Court rendered in Farooq Ahmeds case (supra). 22. I am also of the view that the decision which has been rendered by the Tribunal vide Judgment dated 111.2002, while observing that the initial order which was passed in favour of the respondent (claimant) dated 17.l5.1997 is justified and the impugned order dated 30.03.2002 by which they have considered the regular selection w.e.f. 20.09.1980 on the post of L.D.C. is illegal and not according to law. The respondent (claimant) is entitled to get the benefit of Selection Grade only from the date of initial appointment as mentioned in the order dated 17.05.1997. No illegality has been committed by the Tribunal while observing this fact and the same fact is also very well fortified by a catena of Judgment s rendered by the Honble Supreme Court as well as the larger Bench of this Court in Farooq Ahmeds case (Supra). 23. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 30.03.2002 quashed by the Tribunal, is justified. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Learned Tribunal in this regard. 24. The net out-come of the aforesaid discussion is that the instant writ petition lacks merit, it has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.