JUDGMENT : Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. Heard both the counsel of the parties. 2. The counsel for the petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the order dated 7/5/1997 by which his third selection Grade granted to him in the pay scale of 2200-4000 earlier was withdrawn. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner Shri Reasham Bhargava that the order is illegal and unjustified. The first submission, which he raised is that the order has been passed without following the principle of audi alteram partem and on that count, the order is bad. 4. Secondly, he has taken this Court to the circular dated 25/1/1992 as well as the explanation issued by the Finance Department dated 21/8/1996 whereby it was clarified that the maximum pay scale which was granted by giving the benefit of third selection scale would be of 2200-4000. Even as per clause 5 of Circular dated 25/1/1992 the table which has been provided says at no.15 that the last benefit of Selection scale reaches upto 2200-4000. 5. It is submitted that the respondents had already granted him the benefit by relying upon the Finance Department Circular dated 21/8/1996 vide order dated 25/10/1993. However, the benefit already granted was withdrawn by impugned order dated 7/5/1997. The Department has fallen back of the explanation of Circular dated 3/5/1994. Although, the same was subsequently clarified. 6. The state is concerned, it has been submitted that because the pay scale of 2200-4000 is in State service, the same cannot be made available in view of a specific provisions as explained by the Finance Department vide Circular dated 3/5/1994 which has been placed by them along with an additional affidavit. The chart is being shown to support their submissions and it is stated that the maximum selection scale which can be given 2000-3500 and Pay Scale of 2200-4000 shall not be available for Teacher Grade-II. As the Circular dated 3/5/1994 was issued only for a Teacher Grade-II, the same would only be applicable on the petitioner. 7. After examining the Circular dated 25/1/1992 issued by the Finance Department as well as the Memo dated 21/8/1996 issued by the Finance Department, it is seen that the last circular issued by the Finance Department dated 21/8/1996 reiterates the position which stood in circular dated 25/9/1992. 7. After examining the Circular dated 25/1/1992 issued by the Finance Department as well as the Memo dated 21/8/1996 issued by the Finance Department, it is seen that the last circular issued by the Finance Department dated 21/8/1996 reiterates the position which stood in circular dated 25/9/1992. It has been subsequently mentioned in Memo dated 21/8/1996, as under : "The existing item "(1)" appearing under heading "Clarification" against "Point of doubt" number 4 of Finance Department Memorandum of even number dated 3.4.1993 shall be substituted by the following, namely - (1) In cases where first, second or third promotion post exists in the same service/cadre i.e. in Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services and the employee possesses academic qualifications for promotion the first, second or the third selection grade shall be the pay scale of the first, second or the third promotion post. If the pay scale of the second/third promotion post available in the same service/cadre is higher than the pay scale of 2200-4000, the second/third selection grade shall be the pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale (pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale (pay scale) of the post held or the selection grade) as specified in paragraph 5 of the order dated 25/1/1992. This shall be deemed to have come into force from 25/1/1992. " 8. In view of the above, the Department rightly passed an order earlier on 5/3/1997 according the pay scale to the petitioner in the pay scale of 2200-4000 with effect from 25/10/1993. It appears that for reasons best known to the state they have again fallen back on the Circular dated 3/5/1994 and withdrawn the pay scale already granted to the petitioner. Such a withdrawal of pay scale is without application of mind more so. When the letter dated 3/5/1994 does not appear to be a Circular issued by the Finance Department rules division and is merely a letter written by an Official of the Finance Department. The writ petition by one Shri Ramavatar on special duty to the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner. Whereas the Finance Department rules division has issued a memo subsequently on 21/8/1996 explaining the fact situation for all department which includes the education department. 9. In view thereof, the letter dated 3/5/1994 will have no application and cannot cover Teacher Grade-II who alone cannot be treated differently from other employees of the state. Whereas the Finance Department rules division has issued a memo subsequently on 21/8/1996 explaining the fact situation for all department which includes the education department. 9. In view thereof, the letter dated 3/5/1994 will have no application and cannot cover Teacher Grade-II who alone cannot be treated differently from other employees of the state. As it could amount to disparity amongst the employees. 10. In view thereof, the order dated 7/5/1997 passed by the respondents on the basis of letter dated 5/3/1994 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to receive third Selection grade in the Pay Scale of 2200-4000 with effect from 25/2/1993 and the order dated 5/3/1997 is restored. The arrears shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order, failing which the petitioner will be free to take contempt proceedings against the respondents. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.