JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 1. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Thereafter at the request of the parties, the appeal was heard on merits today itself. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan & others reported in 2004(2) CDR-925 (Raj.) to contend that the controversy involved in the present case is covered by that judgment which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge. 4. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Single Judge at page-3 has allowed the writ petition in the manner allowed by following the said decision in Devi Singh's case, and a subsequent judgment in Narendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4865/2003 decided on 3.1.2007 also. In Devi Singh's case it has been held that for entitlement to the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9 years of service, the punishment of censure would not come in the way of the employee as giving of selection scale does not involve any selection on merits. In the present case the employee was otherwise entitled to selection scale w.e.f. 5.1.2000 but was given the same w.e.f. 5.1.2003 on account of the fact that the employee suffered one punishment of censure in the year 1994, and another punishment of censure in 1995, and also one punishment of with-holding of one grade increment without cumulative effect in the year 1995 on 31.8.1995. 5. The learned Single Judge, in view of the above held that since punishment of censure cannot come in the way of grant of selection scale, however, the punishment of withholding of annual grade increment does come in the way. Therefore, the selection scale has been ordered to be granted w.e.f. 5.1.2001 instead of 5.1.2003, so also instead of 5.1.2000. 6. In our view, on the face of the judgment in Devi Singh's case it cannot be said that the impugned judgment suffers from any error requiring any interference in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed on merits. Appeal Dismissed *******