JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved of the denial of benefits of selection scale on completion of 27 years of service and arrears of pay with interest as claimed by a notice dated 3rd October, 2013, served through counsel; the petitioner has instituted the present writ application praying for the following relief(s):- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your lordship may kindly be pleased to accept this Writ Petition and further be pleased to issue an appropriate, writ, order or direction whereby the action of the respondents in not granting the selection scale benefits on completion of 27 years service and in keeping the recommendation of departmental promotion committee without any reason be declared arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unreasonable, and further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of selection scale of 27 years service and also be pleased to direct the respondents to give promotion on the post of Inspector Land Record as per recommendation of departmental promotion committee from the date when the junior to the petitioner has been given the promotion with all consequential benefits and arrear be paid with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from due in the larger interest of justice. Any other relief which deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may also be granted to the petitioner." 2. Briefly, the skeletal material facts essential for adjudication of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. The petitioner, who entered in service with the State-respondents as 'Patwari' on 2nd November, 1979, was prosecuted for offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; in view of the FIR registered on 24th June, 1999. He was placed under suspension on 5th July, 1999. On his acquittal by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Kota, vide judgment and order dated 27th September, 2001; the order of suspension was revoked on 15th February, 2002. He was placed under suspension on 5th July, 1999. On his acquittal by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Kota, vide judgment and order dated 27th September, 2001; the order of suspension was revoked on 15th February, 2002. Since the service benefits were not accorded to the petitioner; for the period in integram, he instituted S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 9762/2012 (Aji Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 9th July, 2012 , observing thus:- "In view of the aforesaid and looking to the notice for demand of justice, respondents are directed to consider the same and take a proper decision in the matter for grant of revision of pay scales pursuant to 5th and 6th Revised Pay Scale Rules and also grant benefit of selection scales, if petitioner has already completed required length of service and no adversity exists against him. They will also consider that mere pendency of the appeal cannot be taken adverse unless aforesaid is decided against petitioner. A decision on the direction indicated above may be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the light of the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. This disposes of stay application also." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, submits that as a consequence of the order dated 9th July, 2012, the benefits of selection scale after completion of 9 and 18 years of service have been released in favour of the petitioner, but the benefits of selection scale on completion of 27 years of service have been denied on the pretext that the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee have been kept in sealed cover for the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27th September, 2001, is under appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents relying upon the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basheer @ N.P. Basheer v. State of Kerala: (2004) 3 SCC 609 ; submits that since an appeal is the continuation of the trial, therefore, the pendency of the appeal would preclude the petitioner from the benefits of promotion, after completion of 27 years of service. Moreover, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee after completion of 27 years of service and the matter has been kept in sealed cover for the proceedings initiated and resulted into acquittal by the Trial Court are still pending in appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 6. From the order made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in earlier round of litigation, it is more than evident that mere pendency of the appeal against the judgment and order of the acquittal would not disentitle the petitioner from the benefits of selection scale after 9 and 18 years of service. Once, the respondents accepted the view and accorded benefits of selection scale after completion of 9 and 18 years of service; there was no occasion to decline the same benefits after completion of 27 years of service. In the case of Riyazuddin Usmani v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. , a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, on 5th October, 2009; while considering somewhat similar controversy held thus:- "The petitioner at present suffers from no stigma on basis of which the respondents could have denied annual grade increments, consideration for promotion, consideration for confirmation in service and also other ancillary benefits such as travelling allowance, dearness allowance, sanctioned leave etc. and their encashment. The stoppage of increments as well as withholding of promotion are minor penalties prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1958") and no such penalty can be imposed on a Government servant till having an adverse finding as a consequent to regular disciplinary proceedings as prescribed under the Rules. The requirement to conduct disciplinary proceedings can be dispensed with only in the circumstances prescribed under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 and in present case no such circumstances are in existence. If the respondents be permitted to withheld promotion of the petitioner, annual grade increments and even confirmation in service, then that shall be nothing but imposition of a penalty without adhering the procedure prescribed. If the respondents be permitted to withheld promotion of the petitioner, annual grade increments and even confirmation in service, then that shall be nothing but imposition of a penalty without adhering the procedure prescribed. At the moment, the petitioner is neither facing criminal trial nor he is undergoing an inquiry as per the Rules of 1958 and as such even on interlocutory basis the respondents cannot be permitted to detain annual grade increments and consideration for promotion relating to the petitioner. In view of whatever said above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for grant of confirmation in service as per Rules and further to make fixation of his pay in the applicable revised pay scales by granting him all applicable annual grade increments. The respondents shall also consider case of the petitioner for promotion as Inspector Gr.I from the date other similarly situated persons were considered as such. In the event the petitioner is found suitable, promotion be accorded to him. The petitioner shall also be entitled for travelling allowance, dearness allowance and sanctioned leave, if any is detained during the period the petitioner faced criminal trial or faced suspension. The petitioner shall also be entitled for all other consequential benefits." 7. From a glance of the factual matrix, it is more than evident that the State-respondents had no reason in law to withhold the benefits of selection scale to the petitioner after completion of 27 years of service once they had accepted the view of this Court in view of the order dated 9th July, 2012; and have accorded the benefits of selection scale after completion of 9 and 18 years of service. The petitioner at present suffered none of the disqualification under the relevant rules, which would disqualify or disentitle him from the benefits of selection scale after completion of 27 years of service in the face of the judgment and order dated 27th September, 2001, wherein he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 8. For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition has substance and merits acceptance. 9. Consequently, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. 10. 8. For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition has substance and merits acceptance. 9. Consequently, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. 10. The State-respondents are directed to release the benefits of selection scale after completion of 27 years of service including all the consequential benefits including arrears, if any, along with interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioner would also be entitled to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees : Ten Thousands Only). 11. The respondents are directed to ensure compliance of this order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. *******