JUDGMENT 1. - The judgment and order dated 23.8.2005 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3080/2004 instituted by the respondent herein is in assailment in the present appeal. By the decision impugned, the appellants had been directed to fix the pay of the respondent in the pay scale No. 8 i.e.4000- 4500 of Carpenter Grade-I with effect from 4-6-1985 with all consequential benefits. He had been further held entitled for an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as costs. 2. We have heard Mr.Kanishk Gupta appearing on behalf of Mr.Sushil Sharma, Additional Advocate General for the appellants and Mr.R.P.Garg, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. In bare essentials, the facts necessary for the present adjudication, are that the respondent, who was initially appointed as Beldar 2013 Lab IC/ 250 X in the Public Works Department of the State (hereinafter referred to as 'the department') on 18.10.1973, was conferred semi-permanent status with effect from 7.10.1975, whereafter he had been promoted as Carpenter Helper Grade-I vide order dated 4.6.1985. According to the respondent, along with him, one Shri Suresh Chand was also promoted with the same scale of pay i.e.370-530, as that of his, and though he (respondent) used to receive Rs. 395/- per month, Shri Suresh Chand was accorded Rs. 375/- per month. The grievance of the respondent in the writ proceedings was that though Shri Suresh Chand was junior to him in service and had been receiving a lesser pay than him, was thereafter favoured with higher pay scale of 4000-4500, and he (respondent) was retained in the pay scale of 2750-4400. Citing the instances of other incumbents, namely, Smt.Rina Malik, Shri Pawan Kumar Jain, Smt.Kamla Devi etc., who were similarly junior to him in service, but were sanctioned a higher pay scale, he sought for writ of mandamus to be provided with the same pay scale of 4000-4500 with effect from 4.6.1985 i.e. the date of his pro- motion as Carpenter Helper Grade-I. 4. Carrying this claim, the respondent, in fact, had approached this Court earlier in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1151/2004 which was disposed of on 4.3.2004 with a direction to the appellants to examine the representation/notice submitted/served by him to that effect within a fixed time-frame. It was thereafter that vide order dated 6.4.2004 of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Nagar Khand-fl, Jaipur, by citing detailed reasons, his claim was rejected. It was thereafter that vide order dated 6.4.2004 of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Nagar Khand-fl, Jaipur, by citing detailed reasons, his claim was rejected. Being dejected, he returned to this Court and his challenge thereto was sustained and consequential directions referred to hereinabove were issued. 5. In their reply, the appellants (respondents in the writ proceedings), in substance, pleaded that as per the Rajasthan Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the respondent, who was promoted as Helper Grade-II in the pay scale of 370-530, could not have been promoted thereunder directly to the post of Carpenter Grade-I without first serving in the intervening posts of Carpenter Helper Grade-I and Carpenter Grade-II. According to the appellants, the parity contemplated by the respondent with Shri Suresh Chand and others named in the writ petition was wholly misconceived. They averred that Shri Suresh Chand, Smt.Rina Malik, Shri Pawan Kumar Jain etc., were all matriculates and that the respondent -could not even pass Class VI and thus, was not eligible for the post of LDC/Store Munshi to which Shri Suresh Chand was construed to be suitable, academically and otherwise, and was granted the pay scale relatable to that post. They also denied the respondent's assertion of higher pay scale provided inter alia to Smt.Kamla Devi and clarified that the others named by him belonged to different trades involving divergent nature of works with varying channels of promotion. They asserted further that the respondent had been working as Carpenter Helper Grade-I and had not been assigned any work of Carpenter Grade-I. That no further promotion had been given to him after 4.6.1985, was also mentioned. 6. The learned single Judge, however, on an interpretation of pleadings of the parties, concluded that Shri Suresh Chand was junior to the respondent and that not only he, many others who were similarly placed had been receiving more salary than him (respondent). It was held that the appellants had failed to show that for the purpose of being entitled to the pay scale of 4000-4500, the respondent should possess a matriculation certificate. 7. It was held that the appellants had failed to show that for the purpose of being entitled to the pay scale of 4000-4500, the respondent should possess a matriculation certificate. 7. In course of the hearing of the instant appeal, the appellants were required to bring on record, for the purpose of appropriate adjudication, the appointment orders of the respondent as Beldar, Helper Grade-11 and Helper to Carpenter Grade-I as well as of Shri Suresh Chand appointing him as LDC, and they by their additional pleadings dated 1.2.2013, did comply with this direction. 8. Whereas the learned counsel for the appellants has urged that having regard to the Rules, academic qualification and experience of the respondent, he was not entitled to be promoted to the post of Carpenter by the order dated 4.6.1985 and that his claim for higher pay scale at par with Shri Suresh Chand is plainly untenable. Mr.R.P.Garg has reiterated that he (respondent) has been discriminated and having regard to the duration of his unblemished service, he is entitled to the pay scale and other service benefits at par with Suresh Chand and others equally placed. 9. We have duly considered the pleadings and the arguments advanced. 10. The appellants, in their additional pleadings as above, have clarified that by order dated 4.6.1985 the respondent had been inadvertantly promoted to the post of Carpenter from his feeder post of Helper Grade-II. Referring to the promotional channel for this trade, the appellants have further elaborated that the successive stages of progression of Helper Grade- 11 is to Helper Grade-I and then to Carpenter Grade-11 to culminate with Carpenter Grade- I. They have stated on oath that this erroneous promotion of the respondent from the post of Helper Grade-H to Carpenter Grade-I had never been given effect to and he had been paid his salary as per his entitlement as Helper Grade-I, the next promotional post to Helper Grade II. This is apparent too from the letter dated 6.4.2004 of the Executive Engineer, referred to hereinabove, which sets out the hierarchy of posts inter alia of Carpenter Grade- I and Carpenter Grade-II and eligibility for promotion thereto. This is apparent too from the letter dated 6.4.2004 of the Executive Engineer, referred to hereinabove, which sets out the hierarchy of posts inter alia of Carpenter Grade- I and Carpenter Grade-II and eligibility for promotion thereto. This letter discloses, in clear terms, that not only as per the Rules governing the process of recruitment to these posts, an incumbent in the grade of Carpenter Helper Grade II is not eligible to be considered for promotion to that of Carpenter Grade II, but also logically not to the still higher post of Carpenter Grade I. That the respondent did not have the necessary service experience in the feeder post contemplated, was also underlined. The promotional channel was enumerated hereinbelow : 11. The fact that Shri Suresh Chand is a matriculate and thus higher qualified than the respondent, is not in dispute and that he (respondent) did not possess the required experience as prescribed by the Rules in the feeder post(s) for promotion to the post of Carpenter Grade I, is also not denied by him. His claim for parity of pay with Shri Suresh Chand in the pay scale of 4000-4500 is only based on the length of his service which essentially, as the records discloses, subsequent to 4.6.1985 is in the post of Helper Grade II. These being disclosures from the relevant contemporaneous records, cannot be lightly brushed aside. 12. In view of the above, we are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the conclusions and the operative directions contained in the impugned judgment and order. The respondent, in view of his academic qualification and service experience, is not entitled to the reliefs, as claimed. No interference with the well reasoned order dated 6.4.2004 impugned in the writ proceedings is warranted, in the singular facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order is set aside. No costs.Appeal allowed. *******