ORDER 1. The appellant- defendant-RSRTC (hereafter 'the RSRTC') has preferred this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 8-8-2019 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in first appeal No.3/2014 dismissing appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 16-12-2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in civil suit No.39/2012 whereby and whereunder suit has been partly decreed and plaintiff has been declared entitled for benefits of selection grade on completion of service of 9 years on 22-1-1995 and on completion of 18 years service on 22-1-2004 and further directed for revision of pay and arrears of salary. 2. Facts as culled out from the record are that respondent- plaintiff (hereafter 'the plaintiff') filed a suit claiming therein that he was appointed on the post of Conductor on 27-4-1985 and was given permanent status vide order No.636 dated 22-1-1986. Pursuant to Circular dated 25-1-1992 issued by the Finance Department of Government of Rajasthan, which had been adopted and followed by RSRTC vide order dated 27-4-1993 for grant of selection grade on completion of service of 9, 18 and 27 years, defendants have not provided such benefits to plaintiff. When the request of plaintiff was finally declined on 10-1-2012, the plaintiff filed the civil suit claiming benefits of selection grade. Arrears and interest thereon was also prayed for. 3. Defendants filed written statement and opposed the claim of plaintiff on the ground that several charge sheets were issued to plaintiff and he was remained under suspension and salary of suspension period was forfeited. Thus service of plaintiff was not clean and satisfactory, therefore, he was not entitled for benefits of selection grade. It was also alleged that suit was barred by limitation and that civil court had no jurisdiction. 4. On basis of pleadings of parties, six issues were framed. Plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1. In rebuttal RSRTC produced one witness as Dw.1, and exhibited documents. The trial court considered the plaintiff's case on merits and decided the issue No.1, regarding entitlement of plaintiff for selection grade on completion of service of 9 and 18 years, in favour of plaintiff and the issue No.2, regarding interest on arrears, was decided partially in favour of plaintiff. In rebuttal RSRTC produced one witness as Dw.1, and exhibited documents. The trial court considered the plaintiff's case on merits and decided the issue No.1, regarding entitlement of plaintiff for selection grade on completion of service of 9 and 18 years, in favour of plaintiff and the issue No.2, regarding interest on arrears, was decided partially in favour of plaintiff. Issue No.3 regarding jurisdiction of civil court or Industrial Tribunal was decided in favour of plaintiff holding that action of defendant of non issue of benefits of selection grade is arbitrary and was held against the principles of natural justice. Issue No.4, regarding limitation of suit was decided against defendant as the action of non issuing selection grade was a continuing cause. Issue No.5, regarding valuation was also decided against defendant. Consequently the suit was decreed. 5. On filing first appeal, the appellate court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this second appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused impugned judgments passed by courts below. 7. Counsel for appellant has vehemently argued that disputes raised by the respondent plaintiff employee for granted of benefits of selection scale, could have been tried by the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide such disputes. 8. The issue of jurisdiction of civil court or Industrial Tribunal has been considered by this court in case of RSRTC Vs. Ramesh Kumar [2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 607] and held that plaintiff sought relief in respect of grant of selection scale or withholding of increment as a measure of punishment or recovery etc., which do not fall within the purview of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This court after elaborate discussion of nature and disputes as described in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, observed that the dispute regarding grant of selection scale or withholding increments is not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This court held that since such nature of disputes are not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Civil Court is well within its jurisdiction to entertain and decide such disputes. Hence, arguments raised by counsel for appellant stands duly answered by this court in case of Ramesh Kumar (supra). This court held that since such nature of disputes are not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Civil Court is well within its jurisdiction to entertain and decide such disputes. Hence, arguments raised by counsel for appellant stands duly answered by this court in case of Ramesh Kumar (supra). Thus, this court finds that Civil Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in entertaining and deciding the civil suit filed by respondent plaintiff and further withholding all increments and non grant of selection scale was found an arbitrary act of the RSRTC as well as violative to their own circular, hence, the action is in violation of principles of natural justice as well. Accordingly, the Civil Court is well within its jurisdiction and the issue of jurisdiction has rightly been decided by the trial court and has rightly been upheld by the appellate court, and there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in such findings. As such, the argument raised by counsel for appellant does not hold water. 9. The Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa [ (2009)4 SCC 299 ] held that in case of violation of statutory Regulations as also right of equality as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India a civil suit will be maintainable for the purpose of declaration. In the opinion of this court, both courts below have not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. 10. Having considered submissions made by learned counsel for appellant RSRTC and two impugned judgments passed by courts below, this court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts. It has brought to the notice of this court that in an identical set of facts, a coordinate bench of this court in case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Malu Ram, SB Civil Second Appeal No.3/2010, decided on 31-7-2017, dealt with similar issues as raised by the appellant herein. The court, after considering judgment of Division Bench in case of RSRTC Vs. Dhanraj [DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.635/2008, decided on 10-12-2008] observed that the interference/ modification by RSRTC with the circular of State Government regarding grant of selection grade is not legal. 11. The ratio decidendi squarely applicable to the case at hand also. Further, this judgment has also been followed in case of RSRTC Vs. Dhanraj [DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.635/2008, decided on 10-12-2008] observed that the interference/ modification by RSRTC with the circular of State Government regarding grant of selection grade is not legal. 11. The ratio decidendi squarely applicable to the case at hand also. Further, this judgment has also been followed in case of RSRTC Vs. Mahaveer Prasad Pareek, SB Civil Second Appeal No.40/2017, decided on 2-4-2018. Therefore, no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 12. Counsel for appellant could not pointed out any infirmity, illegality or perversity in such fact findings. In case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [ (1999) 3 SCC 722 ] and catena of other judgments passed in case of Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [ (2001) 9 SCC 521 ], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa & Ors., [ (2019) 6 SCC 409 ], Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand, [ (1981) 2 SCC 414 ], Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, [ (2000) 1 SCC 434 ] and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors., [ (2019) 10 SCC 595 ], has categorically held that at the stage of second appeal, fact findings recorded by two Courts below, based on appreciation of evidence, should be honoured and must not be interfered with unless and until there is some perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error which leads manifest injustice. Once findings of fact recorded by two Courts below are justified and based on due appreciation of evidence, re-appreciation of evidence at the stage of second appeal in order to draw a different conclusion is not warranted. The scope of second appeal is confined to examine substantial question of law, which are sine qua non to exercise powers under Section 100 of CPC. 13. In case of Umerkhan Vs. Bismillabi [ (2011)9 SCC 684 ] Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded that if a second appeal is admitted on substantial question of law, while hearing second appeal finally, can re-frame substantial question of law or can frame substantial question of law afresh or even can hold that no substantial question of law involved, but the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction of Section 100 CPC without formulating substantial question of law. It is a case where no substantial question of law involved as there is no perversity or material irregularity/ infirmity in the judgments passed by courts below. It is a case where no substantial question of law involved as there is no perversity or material irregularity/ infirmity in the judgments passed by courts below. Accordingly, the second appeal is not liable to succeed. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. 14. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.