JUDGMENT : Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, Writ Petition No.5505/2015 is taken as a leading case. 2. This bunch of writ petitions has been filed by the Additional Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer of Public Health and Engineering Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, assailing order dated 09.04.2014 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby 42 Appeals, filed by employees of Public Health and Engineering Department, were allowed. Learned Tribunal, while allowing the bunch of Appeals, relied on judgment dated 17.11.2008 of a coordinate bench of this court rendered at Principal Seat Jodhpur in Writ Petition No.3631/2008 – Sohanlal Mathur vs. State. Learned Tribunal also relied on judgment dated 25.09.2012 of a coordinate bench of this court by which a bunch of writ petitions, leading one being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3832/2012 – Shyam Singh vs. State and Others, was allowed. The respondents therein were directed to mutatis mutandis apply the judgment of this court dated 17.11.2008 in Sohanlal Mathur, supra. While allowing the appeals, learned Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to give second selection scale to the respondents on completion of 18 years of service in the pay scale of 5000-8000 instead of 4000-6000, and third selection scale on completion of 27 years of service in the grade pay of Rs.9300-34000 with pay band of Rs.3600/- in stead of Rs.3200/- (earlier equivalent pay scale 5500-9000). It was further directed that the orders issued earlier in this regard be withdrawn and new orders, as per judgment of the Tribunal, were directed to be issued within six months from the date of judgment. In the facts and situation of every case, the appellants be given benefit of pay band and in the case of those employees, who have already retired, it was directed that they may be issued amended G.P.O., P.P.O. or C.P.O., and all the appellants be extended benefit of arrears. It was also clarified that in case the State Government has in between enhanced in the grade-pay, then the benefit of enhanced grade-pay be given to each appellants. 3. It was also clarified that in case the State Government has in between enhanced in the grade-pay, then the benefit of enhanced grade-pay be given to each appellants. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that respondents herein filed appeals before the Tribunal for grant of benefit of second selection scale on completion of 18 years of service in the pay scale of 5000-8000 instead of 4000-6000, and third selection scale on completion of 27 years of service in the grade pay of Rs.9300-34000 with pay band of Rs.3600/- in stead of Rs.3200/- (earlier equivalent pay scale 5500-9000). The appeals were opposed by the petitioners by filing reply thereto. It was averred that as per Para 4 of the Circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998, if the pay scale of selection post and the post held by incumbent is same, then the incumbent has to be given the benefit of Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, while making fixation of pay of incumbent. The respondents were granted benefit of Rule 26A while granting them the benefit of selection grades on completion of 27 years of service. Promotion channel of the post of Helper clearly envisages that the post of Fitter-I, Pump Driver-I, Turner-I and Electrician-I shall carry the pay scale of 4000-6000 and pay scale of the post of Foreman-II is also 4000-6000. Even before the Supreme Court in SLP filed against the judgment in Sohanlal Mathur, supra, the issue of grant of selection scales to employees has been left open for consideration of the State Government. 4. Shri Saurabh Saraswat, learned Deputy Government Counsel for petitioners, argued that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the provisions of the Rules and the Circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998 in their true spirit. The benefit of selection scales on completion of 18 and 27 years of service has rightly been given to the respondents in terms of provisions of Circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998. A bare perusal of the Circulars clearly reveals that the benefit of first selection grade shall be given to the employees in the pay scale of next promotion post, second selection grade shall be given to the employee in the pay scale of second promotion post and benefit of third selection grade shall be given in the pay scale of third promotion post. Meaning thereby, the pay scale may be higher or lower or equal or whatsoever, but the same has been given according to the provisions of Para 4 of the Circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998. The respondents are working on the post, which carry promotion channel, therefore, they are governed by Para 4 of the Circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998. According to the provisions of both the Circulars, the respondents are not entitled to get the benefit of the Table as given in Para 5 of the Circulars because the pay scale given in Table of Para 5 is only meant for isolated posts. 5. Learned Deputy Government Counsel argued that there is no bar in the rule for fixing the same pay scale for existing post, for promotion post or selection grade. But, looking to difficulties being faced by the employee in such circumstances, the rule making authority enacted Rule 26A for meeting out the injustice in regard to same pay scale. The benefit of Rule 26A of Rajasthan Service Rules is given in the manner that in the case the promotion post carry the same pay scale then he is to be given one grade increment benefit in the next stage of pay scale as mentioned in Para 12 of the Circular dated 17.02.1998. Learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the pay scale given in Table of Para 5 of the Circular dated 17.02.1998 because the pay scales given in the Table are meant for isolated posts. The petitioners have complied with provisions of Circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998 in letter and spirit and the said Circulars have not been challenged by respondents. 6. Learned Deputy Government Counsel further argued that Para 12 of the Circular dated 17.02.1998 provides that in case an employee, who gets his regular promotion after getting selection grade, which may be identical or lower than the pay scale of promotion post), his pay shall be fixed in accordance with provisions of Note 4 to Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Service Rules. In case the promotion post carries the same pay scale, then benefit of Rule 26A of the RSR is given to the employee. The petitioners are duty bound to comply with the provisions of the Circulars and no order can be passed avoiding said Circulars as the same have not been quashed by any court of law. In case the promotion post carries the same pay scale, then benefit of Rule 26A of the RSR is given to the employee. The petitioners are duty bound to comply with the provisions of the Circulars and no order can be passed avoiding said Circulars as the same have not been quashed by any court of law. It is contended that there two types of posts. One category is of general posts and second category is of isolated posts. General posts are those which carry promotion channel and are governed by Para 4 of the Circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998, whereas isolated posts carry no promotion channel and therefore, they are governed by Table of Para 5 of said Circulars. In Sohanlal Mathur, supra, Table given in Para 5 of the Circular dated 17.02.1998, has wrongly been applied, which resulted the judgment of this court being found on wrong notions. 7. It is argued that in the bunch of appeals decided by learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment, some employees, governed by Rajasthan Service Rules, who have to be given benefit of selection grade, have to be given the same under the provisions of Circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998. The employees, who are governed under the work charged rules, have been given benefit of selection grade given with effect from 01.01.1998 vide Circular dated 04.03.1998. But the learned Tribunal without going through the merits of each case, passed the orders taking into consideration the fact that all the employees are governed under the RSR, which is illegal and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is therefore prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and writ petition be allowed. 8. Shri C.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the issue, which the petitioners seek to raise in these petitions before this Court, is squarely covered by judgment of this court in Sohanlal Mathur, supra, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this court vide its judgment dated 19.05.2011 in Special Appeal (Writ) No.607/2010 and thereafter by the Supreme Court vide order dated 07.09.2012 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.CC14932/2012. The Supreme Court dismissed the same and upheld the judgment dated 19.05.2011. In that case also, the same department was party to the litigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the same and upheld the judgment dated 19.05.2011. In that case also, the same department was party to the litigation. A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 11.11.2014 in Special Appeal (Writ) No.1321/2014 – State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Jitendra Kumar, following the judgment in Sohanlal Mathur, supra, dismissed the appeal of the State. In fact, in Sohanlal Mathur, supra, the coordinate bench of this court relied on earlier judgment of this court dated 05.09.2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2156/2007 – Sharvan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, which arose out of the same department i.e. Public Health & Engineering Department. In that case, the issue was relating to grant of selection grade to a person holding the post of Electrician Gr.I, having an avenue of promotion to the post of Foreman Gr.II in the same pay scale. 9. Learned counsel for respondents has relied on judgment dated 26.09.2011 of a coordinate bench of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15739/2010, entitled the Chief Engineer (Rural) PHED, Jaipur and Another vs. Mangal Ram Bunkar and Another. Reliance is also placed on judgment dated 22.05.2010 of a coordinate bench of this court delivered at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4926/1999 – R.C. Shrimall vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others, and another judgment dated 02.07.2001 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1580/1994 – Akhil Rajasthan Medical & Health and Family Welfare, Multi-purpose Workers Employees Union District Sikar through its President and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. 10. Learned counsel for respondents argued that there is no force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioners that view taken by this court in Sohanlal Mathur, supra, was not correct and that submission is liable to be rejected, as that judgment has attained finality up to the Supreme Court. It is further argued that pay scale provided in Para 5 of the Circulars 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998, is meant to be applied only to isolated posts and not to the posts where avenues of promotion are available, has to be appreciated in the light of view expressed by coordinate bench of this court in Sharvan Kumar, supra, which was followed in Sohanlal Mathur, supra, that promotion in service means authority of higher post with higher emoluments. The selection grade satisfies higher emoluments only. The selection grade satisfies higher emoluments only. If the government does not grant even the higher emoluments, then the prescription of selection grade shall be of no consequence. It is argued that if some of the appellants before the Tribunal being work-charged employees, wherefor the selection scale has been granted only from 01.01.1998 as per order of the Rajasthan Government dated 04.03.1998, also cannot be a reason to interfere with judgment of this court because once they were conferred with permanent status, they seized to be subject to work-charged Rules and were then governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules, like any other employee on the rolls of the State Government. The Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, has rightly directed the Department to grant benefit of second and third selection scales to the respondents in the pay scale of higher post and revise its earlier order. 11. Learned counsel for respondents further argued that petitioners are trying to confuse this court that some of the respondents were governed by the work-charge service Rules whereas the fact is that all of them are governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules. In fact, by accepting them as regular employee, they were granted benefit of first selection scale on completion of nine years of satisfactory service soon after the scheme was introduced by Circular dated 25.01.1992. According to him, the respondents acquired regular status much before promulgation of Circular dated 25.01.1992 and the dispute arose only when second selection scale became due to them. Mere grant of grade increment by recourse to Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, would not deprive them of their legal right of second and third selection grades on completion of 18 and 27 years of service. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 13. Although, it may be true that the Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP filed by the State in the matter of Sohanlal Mathur, supra, had left the question of law open but what is being argued before this court, cannot be said to be purely a question of law. 13. Although, it may be true that the Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP filed by the State in the matter of Sohanlal Mathur, supra, had left the question of law open but what is being argued before this court, cannot be said to be purely a question of law. It is common knowledge that the scheme/policy for grant of selection scales to the employees of the State Government and its instrumentalities, was introduced with a view to removing stagnation faced by members of the ministerial/ subordinate services due to non-grant of timely promotion and if the Government, while granting selection scale, does not grant higher emoluments, then prescription of selection grade, as rightly held by this court in Sharvan Kumar, supra, shall be of no consequence. Prescription of same pay scale on grant of selection grade as that of next selection grade, as that of the lower grade, would be illusory benefit, being contrary to the spirit of the scheme. Para 4(i) of the Circular dated 25.01.1992, which is reiterated in Circular dated 17.02.1998, provided that first selection grade, whenever admissible in terms of the said order, shall be the pay of next promotion post in the same service/cadre. It further provided that in case, there is no next promotion post in the same service/cadre or the employee does not possess the academic qualification prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated post, the first selection scale shall be the pay scale corresponding to his pay scale specified in para 5. 14. Learned Deputy Government Counsel for petitioners would argue that similar provisions are contained in para 4(i) of the Circular dated 17.02.1998 and the Table of the pay scales available in para 5 of the Circular would be applicable to only isolated posts having no avenue of promotion but that argument is not commensurate with the very language of the aforesaid para 4(i), as it envisages other categories as well, namely, when there is no next promotion post in the selection cadre or where employee does not possess requisite qualification for said promotion. While keeping in view these facts, it has to be decided whether para 5 of the Circular dated 25.01.1992 as also Circular dated 17.02.1998, would be applied in the cases where the department proposes to grant benefit of next selection grade in the same pay scale admissible than the present selection grade. While keeping in view these facts, it has to be decided whether para 5 of the Circular dated 25.01.1992 as also Circular dated 17.02.1998, would be applied in the cases where the department proposes to grant benefit of next selection grade in the same pay scale admissible than the present selection grade. Para 5 of the Circular dated 17.02.1998 indeed provides selection grades when there is no post for first, second or third promotion, as the case may be, in the same service/cadre or the employee does not possess academic qualification prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts. 15. Contention that in some of these matters, the respondents were work-charged employees and that in their cases, they were made entitled to receive selection grade only in pursuance of Circular dated 04.03.1998 with effect from 01.01.1998, is noted to be rejected for the stated reasons. If these respondents were conferred permanent status on completion of ten years of service, they were thereby brought on regular roll and then became subject to Rajasthan Service Rules, a fact which is not even disputed by the petitioners as they themselves contend that the respondents would not be entitled to the benefit of higher pay scale by grant of second and third selection grade and would be entitled to only additional increment by virtue of Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Having granted benefit of first selection grade to such employees, the petitioners now cannot be allowed to contend that they would not be governed by the scheme contained in Circular dated 25.01.1992. 16. This court in Sharvan Kumar and Sohanlal Mathur, supra, has decided this question in the terms that if the Government do not grant higher emoluments then prescription of selection grade shall be of no consequence. Prescription of same pay scale on completion of 18 years of service as a matter of fact is an illusory benefit and that is not at all grant of selection grade with the spirit of the Circulars/Notifications dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998. This purposive interpretation of para 4 and 5 of the said Circulars has been approved not only by the Division Bench but also by the Supreme Court. This purposive interpretation of para 4 and 5 of the said Circulars has been approved not only by the Division Bench but also by the Supreme Court. This does not involve any question of law and therefore the contention that judgment in Sohanlal Mathur, supra, has not been decided on correct perspective and the matter should be reopened all over again to be decided afresh, cannot be accepted. This court is informed of the fact that the department has made compliance of similar judgments in the case of several employees and therefore, cannot seek to create two classes of employees of the very same Department of the State, who are otherwise similarly situate. 17. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions fail and same are hereby dismissed. Stay applications, filed therewith, are also dismissed. 18. Since this disposes of bunch of writ petitions, office to place a copy of this order in each file of the bunch.