JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to allow benefit of the first selection scale on completion of 9 years of service with effect from 27.02.2005 instead of 27.02.2006 and order dated 04.04.2006 (Annex.-6) may accordingly be amended. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC vide order dated 15.02.1996 in the respondent Department. An inquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 was conducted against the petitioner on several allegations levelled against him. After conclusion of the said inquiry, a penalty of one grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon him vide order dated 23.05.2003 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Colonization Department, Jaisalmer. Against the order of aforesaid penalty, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and appellate authority vide order dated 28.09.2004 partly allowed the appeal and punishment of stopping the annual grade increment was ordered to be reduced to the punishment of censure. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per circular dated 25.01.1992, the petitioner became entitled to get the benefit of first selection grade with effect from 27.02.2005 but vide order dated 04.04.2006 selection-scale was granted to the petitioner with effect from 27.02.2006 instead of 27.02.2005, the day on which he completed 9 years of service. 4. The contest of the petitioner is that the selection scale is delayed for one year for the reason that the petitioner was punished with the punishment of censure vide order dated 23.05.2003; but, in fact, as per the petitioner, the action of the respondents while not granting him selection-scale with effect from 27.02.2005 is illegal in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others, reported in 2004 (2) CDR 925 , in which, the Division Bench has held that punishment of censure shall not come in way of granting selection-scale. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench, reported in 2009 (5) WLC (Raj.) 699, Ramlal Kardia v. State of Rajasthan , in which, it is again held by the co-ordinate Bench that punishment of censure will not come in way for granting the selection-scale. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench, reported in 2009 (5) WLC (Raj.) 699, Ramlal Kardia v. State of Rajasthan , in which, it is again held by the co-ordinate Bench that punishment of censure will not come in way for granting the selection-scale. Similarly, in the case reported in 2009 WLC (Raj.) 777, Shankarlal Balai v. State of Rajasthan & Others , the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that penalty of censure is minor penalty and the same is not a bar to the petitioner's promotion. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner is entitled for the selection-scale after completion of 9 years of service with effect from 27.02.2005 instead of 27.02.2006. Upon the above ground it is prayed that the order dated 04.04.2006 may be modified and the respondents may be directed to grant selection scale to the petitioner on completion of 9 years' service with effect from 27.02.2005. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused entire pleadings and judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. It is true that in the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner it has been held by the Division Bench and co-ordinate Bench of this Court that censure cannot be treated as punishment for granting selection scale and promotion but in the judgment reported in 2008 (2) RLW 1350, Chiranji Lal v. R.S.R.T.C. , it was held by me that censure is one of the penalties, therefore, it should be treated as punishment. Para 14 of the said judgment is as follows : "(14). Upon aforesaid provisions of law, it is clear that penalty of censor is blameworthy factor for the purpose of promotion and it has to be considered at the time of considering the case of promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee in this case according to the respondent, enumerated penalty of censor was inflicted against the petitioner, therefore, he was not found suitable for promotion by the DPC. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the respondents while considering the penalty of censor as embargo for promotion to the post of Depot manager." 7. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the respondents while considering the penalty of censor as embargo for promotion to the post of Depot manager." 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered judgment on 30.09.2011 in Civil Appeal No.8404/2011, State of Rajasthan & Others v. Shankar Lal Parmar , in which, view taken by me in Chiranji Lal's case has been upheld. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held the view earlier taken by me and has held that censure is one of the punishments enumerated as punishment in the rules, therefore, penalty of censure is a blameworthy factor and those who have earned censure cannot be treated at par with those who have had a clean service record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the adjudication made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others, reported in 2004 (2) CDR 925 (Raj.) , and held that the employees who have earned censure will not be entitled to be granted selection-scale along with those who have unblemished and clean service record, however, they would be granted the benefit only one year thereafter. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shankar Lal (supra) made following adjudication : "21. Since the appeals are to be decided on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution, in short we would like to deal with it. This Article has two essential ingredients. (i) Equality before Law (ii) Equal protection of Law The forefathers of our Constitution in their wisdom incorporated the provision of Equality before Law to attain justice: social, economic and political. While Equal protection of Law was incorporated so that amongst equals, the law could be equally administered and similarly placed persons could be placed in a similar manner. But this has a caveat. State still has the power to differentiate amongst different classes of people. That is to say, it can positively discriminate on the basis of reasonable classification and distinction but this must be based upon an intelligible differentia, which inherently separates such persons from the others. 22. In the case in hand, it is a question of grant of Selection Grade. A Selection Grade has higher pay but in the same post. A promotion post is a higher post with higher pay. 22. In the case in hand, it is a question of grant of Selection Grade. A Selection Grade has higher pay but in the same post. A promotion post is a higher post with higher pay. A Selection Grade is intended to ensure that capable employees who may not be able to get a chance of promotion on account of limited outlets of promotion, should at least be placed in the Selection Grade to prevent stagnation at the maximum of the scale. Selection Grade was created to remove stagnation in service and consequently leading to greater efficiency. State has permitted grant of Selection Grade to those who had good service record but for those who had earned censure, the same has been deferred by one year. Thus, according to us, it would clearly fall in the category of reasonable classification which is permissible in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution and also on account of various judgments pronounced by this Court on this topic from time to time. 23. Thus, in our opinion, there is a basic and fundamental difference between the two categories of the employees. Appellant-State was fully justified in issuing the subsequent Office Order/ letter dated 24.07.1995, putting all controversies at rest. We do not find that any case of discrimination has been made out against the Respondents/Employees. Subsequent Office Order/ letter cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional or without authority of law. We find merit in the arguments advanced by Dr. Manish Singhvi, Advocate for the Appellants and thus, have no hesitation in allowing these Appeals. It is also pertinent to mention here that Respondents/Employees had not challenged the subsequent Office Order/ letter dated 24.07.1995, as being illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary or without jurisdiction. As long as this Office Order/ letter holds good, it is to be implemented in the same manner and spirit in which it was issued. 24. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the learned Judges of the Division Benches cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the same are hereby set aside and quashed. 24. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the learned Judges of the Division Benches cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the same are hereby set aside and quashed. However, looking into the controversies which have been there in the State of Rajasthan since 1992, we deem it fit and proper to pass the following orders: (i) The Appellant-State would not be entitled to recover financial benefits already extended to the employees, pursuant to the first office order issued by Appellant on 25.01.1992. (ii) The Appellant would not also be entitled to recover any amount which might have been paid to the employees even after issuance of the second clarificatory office Order/letter dated 24.07.1995 as according to us, recovery of such amount would cause great hardships to the employees. (iii)The employees who have earned censure in the past years for their service record will not be entitled to be granted `Selection Grade' alongwith those who have a clean and unblemished record. They would be granted `Selection Grade' only one year thereafter. (iv) Any employee who has been promoted before the said period would not be entitled for the grant of `Selection Grade'." 8. In view of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, now, it is abundantly clear that censure is punishment and it is necessarily required to be taken into account for the purpose of assessing the service record of an employee and those persons who earned censure in past years in the service record shall not be treated at par with those who have clean and unblemished service record. 9. For the above reasons, while following the afore quoted adjudication made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******