ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by action of the respondents in not granting third stagnation increment on due date i.e. in the year 2002 but granting it subsequently on 1.5.2006. Petitioner is also aggrieved by refusal to grant selection grade, which was granted to the petitioner on 14.11.2008 w.e.f. 1.1.2005 but arrears of selection grade were paid in the year 2016. Therefore, interest has been claimed on this amount. Petitioner has also claimed release of two increments and restoration of petitioner's pay prior to inflicting of the penalty. It is also submitted that petitioner is in fact entitled for grant of selection grade w.e.f. 1.5.2004 and not w.e.f. 1.1.2005 and these benefits be extended to the petitioner. Petitioner also claimed interest on delayed payment of arrears of selection grade, which was granted to him w.e.f.1.1.2005 vide order date14.11.2008 but actual benefits were paid in the year 2016. 2. It is petitioner's case that he was promoted to the post of Assistant General Manager (Quality Control) as per the orders of Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) Jabalpur award date 6.1.1986 vide zonal office order No. 174/2001 date13.9.2001 w.e.f. 28.12.1984. Petitioner had earned his first stagnation increment in the year 1998 and second stagnation increment was granted to him in the year 2000. 3. It is petitioner's contention that under Regulation 87 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1971, there is a provision for grant of stagnation increment. In terms of this regulation, petitioner became entitled to grant of each stagnation increment after lapse of two years, inasmuch as petitioner had reached at the highest of pay scale of Assistant Manager (QC) re-designated as Manager Quality Control in the pay scale of 6500-200-10500 on 1.1.1996. Therefore third stagnation became due on 1.1.2002, which was not granted in time and was in fact granted on 1.5.2006. 4. It is petitioner's contention that he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and as per order date 16.12.2000, the petitioner was visited with penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years. Therefore third stagnation became due on 1.1.2002, which was not granted in time and was in fact granted on 1.5.2006. 4. It is petitioner's contention that he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and as per order date 16.12.2000, the petitioner was visited with penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years. A copy of the order of punishment is enclosed as Annexure P-4-B. Thereafter, vide order date 30.4.2002 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner was again visited with penalty of reduction of pay by two lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with further direction that he will not earn increments during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of pay. 5. Vide order date14.1.2003, the petitioner was again inflicted with penalty of reduction of two stages in the present time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect and not adversely effecting his pension. 6. It is petitioner's contention that petitioner was to be placed in the selection grade w.e.f. 13.8.2001 vide order date 8.2.2002 (Annexure P-7) but was placed in the selection grade vide order date14.11.2008 w.e.f. 1.1.2005. He submits that this postponement of selection grade is also illegal. 7. Petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court to circular No. 31 of 1993 dated 8th October 1993 on the subject to grant of stagnation increment to the employees stagnating at their maximum scales of pay awaiting result of pending disciplinary proceedings and submits that it was decided that with the approval of the competent authority that the Corporation employees stagnating at the maximum of their scales of pay against whom the disciplinary cases are pending, shall also be eligible for stagnation increment in the same manner as annual increment without linkage of clearance from vigilance angle. Placing reliance on such circular, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that date of stagnation increment could not have been postponed because of pendency of the disciplinary proceeding. He submits that the decision of the authorities that the petitioner was not free from vigilance angle up to 30.4.2004, therefore, third stagnation increment was sanctioned to him w.e.f. 1.5.2006, is manifestly illegal and calls for interference. 8. He submits that the decision of the authorities that the petitioner was not free from vigilance angle up to 30.4.2004, therefore, third stagnation increment was sanctioned to him w.e.f. 1.5.2006, is manifestly illegal and calls for interference. 8. Petitioner has also submitted that his case for grant of stagnation increment w.e.f. 13.8.2001 has been wrongly dealt with, inasmuch as Regulation 87 stood deleted w.e.f. 30.8.1993 vide notification No. 17 date19.5.1994. In any case, as per Annexure B, his increment could not have been postponed after impact of punishment was over. He submits that in fact, Annexure C, which is a circular No. 69 of 1994, only deals with those cases of employees against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending prior to 30.8.1993 and their cases were to be considered for grant of stagnation increments w.e.f. 1.1.1994 irrespective of the pending disciplinary proceedings against them. It is also submitted that since penalty of reduction to a lower stage of pay does not result in loss of seniority, therefore, the date of selection grade could not have been postponed in the case of the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioner was not entitled to earn any stagnation increment or selection grade during currency period of penalty and as the period of penalty was from 16.12.2000 to 30.4.2004, he could not have been granted stagnation increment. It is further submitted that in fact, the petitioner was visited with penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years but before this period was over, the petitioner was again visited with another penalty vide order date 30.4.2002, whereby the penalty of reduction of pay by two lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with further direction that he will not earn increments during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of pay and thereafter further penalty of reduction to two stages in the present time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect and not adversely effecting his pension was passed. Therefore, when he cleared all the vigilance hurdles, he was granted benefit of third stagnation increment and also that of selection grade. 10. Therefore, when he cleared all the vigilance hurdles, he was granted benefit of third stagnation increment and also that of selection grade. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention to the Annexure D filed by the petitioner himself, in which in clause (4) under rule 87, it is mentioned that the employees against whom disciplinary cases are pending shall be considered for grant of stagnation increments only after the result of such disciplinary proceedings is known. Placing reliance on such provisions in the rules, he submits that since the disciplinary cases culminated in inflicting punishment on the petitioner, therefore, decision of the respondents to pay third stagnation increment on 1.5.2006 and selection grade w.e.f. 1.1.2005 can not be faulted with. He has also drawn attention of this Court to Annexure R-5, which is the circular No. wr 09200112 date 13.8.2001, which provides that all the Assistant Managers and equivalents, who have completed 12 years services as on 31st December of previous year shall be eligible for consideration for selection grade posts. Procedure for placement to selection grade has been mentioned in clause III, sub clause (a) of which provides that the Bench mark for placement to selection grade shall be ‘Good’ grading in last 3 years of Annual Confidential Report of the employee concerned. Sub-clause (c) of clause III provides that the selection grade shall be allowed to Assistant Managers and equivalents subject to vigilance clearance. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the selection grade was subject to vigilance clearance and since the petitioner was under punishment till 2004, he was not entitled to be granted selection grade till 1.1.2005 and that has been rightly granted to him w.e.f. 1.1.2005 vide order date 14.11.2008. He submits that as far as stagnation increments are concerned, the petitioner is wrongly placing reliance on the Circular of 1993 and in fact he could not have earned his stagnation increment till he was free from vigilance angle. In this regard reliance has been placed on Annexure R-4, which is the circular No. 69 of 1994 date 25th November, 1994. In this regard reliance has been placed on Annexure R-4, which is the circular No. 69 of 1994 date 25th November, 1994. He submits that effect of the circular is that if a disciplinary proceeding has not culminated into penalty of withholding or postponing the increment, then merely pendency of the disciplinary proceeding will not be sufficient to deny grant of stagnation increment to employee stagnating to the maximum of their scale of pay. 11. In the above background, petitioner’s claims are to be examined in seriatim. 12. Petitioner’s first claim for grant of third stagnation increment is to be examined in terms of the provisions contained in Circular No. 69 of 1994, inasmuch as it supersedes the circular No. 31 of 1993. Secondly, the stagnation increment is to facilitate an employee to have some monetary benefit had he not stagnated. The principle of service jurisprudence is that all increments are earned subject to future good conduct. That means that a person should not be visited with any penalty if increments are to be earned in normal course. Admittedly, the petitioner was visited with three penalties one after another; namely one inflicted vide order date16.12.2000, stopping one increment without cumulative effect. Now the meaning of stoppage of one increment will loose sanctity if stagnation increment was to be released to the petitioner because that was only increment, which the petitioner was to earn in the year 2002, therefore, this increment was to be withheld for a period of one year. Thereafter, the petitioner was again visited with penalty of reduction of pay by two lower stages vide order date 30.4.2002 for a period of two years with further direction that he will not earn increment during the period of such reduction. Therefore, petitioner’s date of increment got postponed for a period of two years i.e. up to 30.4.2004 and thereafter vide order date14.1.2003 he was again inflicted by penalty of reduction of two stages in the present time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect and not affecting his pension. 13. Therefore, petitioner’s date of increment got postponed for a period of two years i.e. up to 30.4.2004 and thereafter vide order date14.1.2003 he was again inflicted by penalty of reduction of two stages in the present time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect and not affecting his pension. 13. Therefore, as per the explanation given in Annexure B filed by the petitioner in the form of extracts of complete book of disciplinary proceeding of D.B.Khanna, in para 9.6.7, it is mentioned that Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. V.K.Krishnan [1992 AIR SCW 2150], has upheld O.M.No. 22011/2/78-Estt(A) date16.2.1979, which provides that promotion can not be given to the employee during the currency of the punishment. Similarly, financial implications of the penalty of reduction to a lower stage of pay in the time scale of pay, as have been explained in para 9.7.2, reveals that petitioner’s pay in regard to grant of stagnation allowance has been rightly fixed, inasmuch as by virtue of order dated 30.4.2002, petitioner’s case will fall under sub clause (iii) of para 9.7.2 and the effect of order date14.01.2003 will be governed by clause (ii) of para 9.7.2. Thus, during currency of the punishment in terms of circular (Annexure R-4), the petitioner was not entitled to claim stagnation increment and they have rightly been awarded to him on 1.5.2006. 14. As far as issue of award of selection grade is concerned that has to be governed by the provisions contained in Annexure R-5, which clearly provides that selection grade shall be allowed to Assistant Manager or equivalents subject to vigilance clearance. Since the petitioner was already under the spell of punishment, he was not entitled to earn his selection grade unless and until that impact of punishment is over and therefore, the petitioner has been rightly granted selection grade w.e.f. 1.1.2005. 15. This brings us to the next claim i.e. the interest. This claim has some justification, inasmuch as when the petitioner was awarded selection grade vide order date14.11.2008 w.e.f. 1.1.2005, he should have been also awarded arrears of pay scale fixation vide order date14.11.2008 but as per the petitioner such arrears were paid in the year 2016. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay interest on the arrears of selection grade w.e.f. 14.11.2008 @ 8% p.a. till the date of actual payment. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay interest on the arrears of selection grade w.e.f. 14.11.2008 @ 8% p.a. till the date of actual payment. To the above extent petition succeeds and is disposed of.