JUDGMENT 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 31.07.2002 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No. 710/2001) filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.07.1999 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. 2. Briefly put, the facts and background aspects relevant for the present purpose are that the petitioner-appellant entered the service with the Principal and Controller, Dr. S.N. Medical College and Associated Hospitals, Jodhpur on the post of Painter on 20.09.1965 and retired after rendering about 29 years of service. After retirement, the petitioner-appellant filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters) Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 essentially stating the grievance of having not been allowed the applicable pay scales under the revised Pay Scale Rules; and having not been granted due selection grades upon completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service as per the Government Order dated 25.01.1992. The petitioner-appellant prayed for the following reliefs before the Tribunal "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the respondents may kindly be directed to fix the appellant in the Pay Scale No.6 under the Pay Scale Rules 1987 with all consequential benefits. 2. The respondents may kindly be directed to provide Pay Scale No.6 i.e. Rs. 950-1680 w.e.f. 1.9.88 under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989 to the appellant. 3. The respondents may kindly be directed to fix and provide the benefit of 9, 18, 27 years of service while taking into account Pay Scale No. 6 under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989. The appellant is also entitled to be fixed at Rs. 1640-2900 w.e.f. 25.1.92 and provided arrears with interest @ 18% per annum. 4. Costs of this appeal may kindly be awarded in favour of the appellant for not giving benefit of Pay Scale as well as benefit of 9, 18 and 27 years of service rendered to the respondents for years together." 3. The Tribunal considered the submissions as made on behalf of the appellant and the respondents and dismissed the appeal by the order dated 19.7.1999 with the finding that the appellant had been granted Pay Scale No. 6 from 1.9.1988 and so far the granting of second and third selection grades was concerned, there was a prohibition stated in the order dated 25.1.1992 in relation to the persons not eligible for promotion. The following had been the observations and findings of the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal. " bl ekeys esa izdV gksrk gS fd vusDpj&vkj@1 tks izR;FkhZ foHkkx dh vksj ls is'k fd;k x;k gS] ls Li"V gS fd vihykFkhZ dks 1-9-88 ls osru J`a[kyk&6 nh xbZ gSA tgka rd f}rh; ,oa r`rh; p;u osrueku nsus dk iz'u gS] mlds fy, jkT; ljdkj ds vkns'k fnukad 25-1-92 ds vUrxZr tks yksx inksUufr dh ik=rk ugha j[krs gSa] mUgsa p;u osrueku nsus ij izfrcU/k yxk;k gSA " 4. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner-appellant preferred the writ petition wherefrom has arisen this intra-court appeal. The learned Single Judge found no case for interference and dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:- "4. From perusing the order dated 9.3.1990 (Annex.R/1), it is clear that the petitioner was paced in Pay scale No. 6 for which he was making a prayer and this fact has been very well considered by the Tribunal in its impugned judgment Annex. 4 dated 19.7.1999. 5. From perusing Annex. R/2 and Annex.R/3, it is also very much clear that the petitioner has been given revision of pay as well as selection grade and both orders are dated 12.5.1992 and 8.9.1992 respectively. 6. The note appended to clause-5 of the Scheme dated 25.1.1992 (Annex. 1) reads as follows:- "Note:- If an incumbent of the isolated post or a person not possessing academic qualifications prescribed for promotion has been granted Selection Grade before issue of this order and such Selection Grade is higher than that indicated in this paragraph, he will continue to draw pay in such Selection Grade as personal to him but the second or third Selection Grade shall be determined with reference to the first or second Selection Grade which would have been admissible in terms of this paragraph." 7. Since the petitioner had already been given selection grade through order Annex. R13 dated 8.9.1992 from pay scale of Rs. 950-1680 to Rs. 1200-2050 and that selection grade is higher than indicated in clause (5) of the Scheme dated 25.1.1992 (Annex. 1), therefore, in these circumstances, in view of the note appended to clause (5) of the Scheme Annex. 1, if the petitioner was denied further selection grade by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment Annex. 4, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has committed no illegality in doing so. 1), therefore, in these circumstances, in view of the note appended to clause (5) of the Scheme Annex. 1, if the petitioner was denied further selection grade by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment Annex. 4, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has committed no illegality in doing so. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal Annex. 4 dated 19.7.1999 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and thus, no interference is called for with the same in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. No order as to costs." 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner-appellant that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have failed to take into consideration the real grievance of the appellant and have failed to notice that even if the appellant was allowed first selection grade upon completion of 9 years of service by the order dated 8.9.1992 (Annex. R/3), he was not-granted further selection grades upon completion of 18 and 27 years of service without any reason or justification. The learned Government Counsel has duly supported the orders impugned. 6. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, we are unable to uphold the orders passed by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge and we are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 7. Though after examining the contents of the memo of appeal as preferred before the Tribunal and so also the submissions as made In the writ petition, It appears that the petitioner-appellant made certain submissions suggesting as If his grievance was against denial of applicable pay scale and it was pointed out by the respondents that the requisite pay scales after revision had been allowed to him; however, so for grant of selection grades was concerned, it cannot be said that the petitioner-appellant did not state such grievance before the Tribunal; and we are unable to find a considered decision of the Tribunal particularly on the grievance of the appellant about denial of second and third selection grades. The learned Single Judge has also proceeded to rely on the order passed in relation to first selection grade but has not precisely dealt with the submissions of the appellant regarding denial of second and third selection grades. 8. Of course, we are not commenting on the merits of the case and not pronouncing as to whether the appellant was entitled to such second and third selection grades but we are of the considered view that the Tribunal ought to have adequately dealt with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and ought to have decided specifically as to whether the appellant was entitled to such selection grades or not. The observations made by the Tribunal as reproduced hereinabove definitely fall short of a categorical finding on the real questions in controversy. 9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we have no option but to set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and by the learned Single Judge and to remand the case to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with law by a reasoned speaking order. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above; the order dated 19.7.1999 passed by the Tribunal and the order dated 31.7.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside; the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal shall stand restored to the file for its decision in accordance with law keeping in view the observations above. The parties are directed to appear before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal on 12.7.2010.Appeal Allowed to Above Extent. *******