Judgment RAJESH BALIA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is barred by 264 days. ( 2 ) APPLICATION under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act has been moved explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal. We find that no reason much less sufficient cause has been shown which could have prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within limitation. ( 3 ) MOREOVER, the issue raised in this appeal has been concluded by the Full Bench decision of this court and, therefore, the appeal does not have merit. The respondent, who was temporarily appointed on 18. 6. 1980 on work charged establishment which is governed by the provisions of Work Charged establishment Rules, 1964 framed under proviso to article 309 of the Constitution. While continuing on the post of Store Munshi, 20% posts of Store Munshies were converted into Lower Divisional Clerks which are governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices (Ministerial Staff) Rules, 1957. Against so converted posts, the petitioner was absorbed as Lower Divisional clerk while continuing as Store Munshi. The pay scale of Store Munshi and the Lower Divisional Clerk is identical is also not in dispute. ( 4 ) BY order dated 25. 1. 1992, the Government has provided for giving benefit to those employees of class IV and class III, who have stagnated on the same level and were not promoted for long period which is popularly known as 9, 18 and 27 years scheme. Under the scheme selection grade is extended to such employee, who had not received any promotion in the intervening span of 9 years period. The incumbent was not granted the benefit of selection pay scale by excluding from consideration the service rendered by the incumbent-respondent on temporary basis, he filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate tribunal for the purposes of extending the benefit of selection scale by taking into consideration the temporary services rendered by him. ( 5 ) SAID appeal was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 17. 4. 2003 relying on the decision of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1267/2001 and S. B. Civil writ Petition No. 3938/200 decided respectively on 13. 10. 2002 and 29. 10. 2002 and also its own earlier decisions. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal held that the services rendered by the workman prior to 1. 4. 4. 2003 relying on the decision of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1267/2001 and S. B. Civil writ Petition No. 3938/200 decided respectively on 13. 10. 2002 and 29. 10. 2002 and also its own earlier decisions. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal held that the services rendered by the workman prior to 1. 4. 1989 when he was brought on the cadre of Ministerial Staff under the Rules is also to be counted for the purpose of extending the benefit of order dated 25. 1. 1992. ( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on finding that the decision relied on by this Court has not been reversed in appeal and has since been affirmed by a Full Bench of this Court in case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Farooq Ahmed and 59 others reported in 2005 (1)WLC page 1, the order of Tribunal does not call for interference. 7. The order of Tribunal isin consonance with ratio laid in Farooq Ahmeds case (supra ). In view thereof, this appeal as well as application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act are hereby dismissed.