JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant State has preferred this special appeal seeking the following reliefs :- "It is therefore, on behalf of humble appellant most humble and respectfully prayed as under :- 1. This special appeal may kindly be allowed as prayed for in the writ petition No. 5119/2004 State of Raj. V/s Surendra Kumar Chawla & Ors. 2. The impugned judgment and order dated 05.07.2017 and 16.12.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge may kindly be quashed and set aside and the writ petition may kindly be allowed as prayed for." 3. Brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the respondent no.1 was appointed on the post of Patwari on 24.11.1976. However, the department compulsorily retired the respondent no.1, while exercising powers under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 vide order dated 5.12.2000. The respondent no.1 thereafter, challenged the said order dated 5.12.2000 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur by filing an appeal being Appeal No.420/2001. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeal vide order dated 9.8.2004 and directed to reinstate the respondent no.1 with all consequential benefits. 4. The appellant State challenged the aforesaid order dated 9.8.2004 by preferring S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5119/2004. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant reinstated the respondent no.1 vide order dated 29.11.2004 pursuant whereto, the respondent no.1 joined the duties on 30.4.2005. However, the stay petition filed along with the writ petition was rejected on 12.12.2006 by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent employee came to be retired from service on 28.2.2013. Taking note of the attendant facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as infructuous on 16.12.2014. The review petition, which was filed against the order dated 16.12.2014, was also dismissed on 5.7.2017. Hence, this special appeal has been preferrred. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant State submits that the adverse remarks for the years 1978-79, 1980-81, 1997-98 and 1998-99 were sufficient to sustain the order of compulsory retirement, and that, the learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating that the writ petition did not become infructuous as the respondent no.1 was allowed to join the service only on account of the order of the learned Tribunal, and further, no interim order was passed by this Court in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the APARs for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 clearly reflect that the respondent no.1 was at fault as he was not authorized to fill certain parts of the APARs, which he filled. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, on being queried, fairly submitted that the respondent no.1 was granted selection scales on completion of 9 and 18 years of service vide order dated 20.12.2000 and thereafter, he effectively retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.2.2013, and was accordingly, given all his due retiral benefits. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that the basic allegation against the respondent no.1 was that while he was posted at respective places from 1995 to 2000, he failed to effect proper recovery while discharging his duties. This Court also finds that once the respondent no.1 has been granted the benefit of selection scales, then the entire irregularities, which have been the base line of passing the order of compulsory retirement, get watered down. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the respondent no.1 was reinstated way back in 2005 and has been granted all his due retiral benefits after getting superannuated on 28.02.2013. Hence, no interference in the impugned orders is called for. 7. In view of the above, the present appeal does not merit acceptance and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.