JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the defendant-appellants. 2. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Jaipur City,Jaipur, in Civil Suit No.734/2006, with averments that he was appointed on the post of Conductor on 27.02.1976 at Jhunjhunu Depot of the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Traffic Training) (for short, appellant Corporation). His services were regularised on the post of Conductor by order dated 02.05.1977. However, he was granted seniority with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 27.02.1976. The appellant Corporation by order dated 29.07.2004 had re-designated all those conductors who were appointed upto the month of December, 1976 as 'patra vitrak', which is the designation of the post of booking clerk. 3. The appellant Corporation vide office order dated 14.12.2004 promulgated a handshake scheme for Drivers, Artisans, Booking Clerks for voluntary retirement, and applications to that effect were to be submitted by those willing upto 31.03.2005. Certain additional benefits were payable under that scheme, therefore, plaintiff-respondent also applied for voluntary retirement under that scheme. However, he was not granted voluntary retirement in that scheme and instead was given normal voluntary retirement by order dated 13.01.2005 with effect from 16.01.2005, under Rule 18(D)(2) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Standing order, 1965. Aggrieved thereby, plaintiff filed the civil suit with the prayer that it be declared that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the handshake scheme. 4. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court; however, learned first appellate court on thorough consideration of the matter, found that since plaintiff was appointed on 27.02.1976 as conductor and that he had joined the duties on 01.03.1976 and those conductors, who were appointed upto the end of month of December, 1976 were deemed to 'patra vitrak' (booking clerk) by order of the appellant Corporation dated 29.07.2004. It was illegal on the part of the defendants not to give the benefit of handshake scheme of voluntary retirement under order dated 14.12.2004, to the plaintiff and retire him with normal benefits. The plea of defendants-appellants that since the plaintiff-respondent was appointed as conductor on regular basis on 01.03.1977 was not accepted. It was illegal on the part of the defendants not to give the benefit of handshake scheme of voluntary retirement under order dated 14.12.2004, to the plaintiff and retire him with normal benefits. The plea of defendants-appellants that since the plaintiff-respondent was appointed as conductor on regular basis on 01.03.1977 was not accepted. Even though it is a case of reversal of judgment of trial court by first appellate court but questions that are raised are all factual and despite the finding not being concurrent, nevertheless it is finding of fact. 5. After considering submissions of learned counsel for appellant as well as findings of both the courts below, I am of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is correct and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Findings recorded by the first appellate court are certainly findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with by this court in second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. 6. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and same is dismissed at admission stage itself.Appeal dismissed. *******