ORDER : Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The petitioners and the other similarly situated persons filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2161/2005; Bhanwar Lal Mali & Ors. vs. Maharana Pratap Agriculture University & Ors. The said writ petition was filed against the non grant of proper selection grade on completion of 9 years of service and same way benefit of second selection grade after completion of 18 years of service. In the said writ petition, it was assured by the respondents-authorities, present before the Court, that the matter of the petitioners would be re-examined in light of the rules and therefore, on the said assurance, the said writ petition was disposed of on 27.02.2008 with the following observations. “Since the learned counsel for the respondents has fairly stated that matter of the petitioner would be considered in the light of the Rules without being guided by the order passed by the Committee, it would be proper to direct the respondent to not only consider the case of the petitioners as per the Rules but if he is entitled for the benefit as prayed by them in the present writ petition necessary order in that regard be passed within two months from today so that controversy may come to an end.” 3. In pursuance to the order dated 27.02.2008, the respondent-University proceeded on to decide the case of the petitioners vide order dated 22.04.2008. Vide the said order, it was decided that the drivers would be granted promotion as also the selection pay scales in terms of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of the University. In terms of the said order, the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 has been granted to the petitioners on completion of 9 years of service and a selection grade is given in the same pay scale after completion of 18 years of service by awarding two additional increments as per the provisions of Rule 26-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The said order dated 22.04.2008 is under challenge in the present petitions on the ground that the selection grade with a similar pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 has been ordered to be granted on completion of 9 years as well as 18 years of service. 4. The said order dated 22.04.2008 is under challenge in the present petitions on the ground that the selection grade with a similar pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 has been ordered to be granted on completion of 9 years as well as 18 years of service. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 22.04.2008 is in total contravention to the notification dated 25.01.1992 of the State Government whereby it has specifically been provided that the first selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of 9 years and further that the second selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of 18 years. Learned counsel further submitted that Clause 4 of the circular dated 25.01.1992 specifically provides that the first and the second selection grade shall be the pay scale corresponding to the employee’s existing pay scale as specified in para 5. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of para 5 of the said circular, as he was granted the 1st selection grade with pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 (being payable to the promotional post of Junior Mechanic), he would now be entitled to the next pay scale that is Rs.5500-9000/6500-10500 whichever is applicable. Learned counsel further submitted that in a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8301/2008 ; Shiv Lal Panchariya & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner filed by the similarly situated employees (drivers of Rajasthan Agriculture University) with the same prayer, the writ petition of the petitioners therein was allowed vide order dated 14.05.2009. The said order dated 14.05.2019 was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and further by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In pursuance to the order dated 14.05.2009, the University therein allowed and granted the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 respectively to the petitioners therein on completion of 9 years and 18 years of service. The relevant orders have also been placed on record. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the case of the petitioners being on a totally similar footing also deserves to be allowed on the same terms. 5. The relevant orders have also been placed on record. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the case of the petitioners being on a totally similar footing also deserves to be allowed on the same terms. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sohan Lal Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan ; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3631/2008 decided on 17.11.2008. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order dated 22.04.2008 passed by the respondents is totally in consonance with the rules and the pay scales as prescribed by the State Government. Learned counsel submitted that the first promotional post from the post of Driver/Carpenter is the Junior Mechanic and the second promotional post is the Senior Mechanic. The pay scale for both the posts is Rs.5000-8000 and the same being determined by the State Government, the University is bound to follow the same. Learned counsel further submitted that the direction in the earlier writ petition of this Court was to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the rules governing the services of the petitioners and in terms of the Rules, the pay scale payable to them would be the one as prescribed by the State Government which is Rs.5000-8000 for both the posts of Junior Mechanic as well as Senior Mechanic. Learned counsel also submitted that the ratio as laid down in the case of Shiv Lal Panchariya (supra) would not be applicable to the present petitioners as in the said matter it was the case of the respondents that the post of Driver is an isolated post whereas in the present case it is the specific case of the University that the post of the Driver/Carpenter is a promotional post and therefore, Clause 5 of the notification dated 21.01.1992 would not be applicable on the present petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that Clause 5 of the notification dated 25.01.1992 applies to only those employees where no promotional post is available for them, that is, the post is an isolated post. Learned counsel also submitted that the present petitioners have been granted the benefit of promotion as and when they were entitled for the same and even the increments as payable to them have also been granted. Learned counsel also submitted that the present petitioners have been granted the benefit of promotion as and when they were entitled for the same and even the increments as payable to them have also been granted. Therefore, the present are not the cases of financial stagnation and the petitioners would be entitled to pay scale payable to the corresponding post as prescribed by the State Government. Learned counsel further submitted that Clause 4 of the notification dated 25.01.1992 would only be applicable to the petitioners and the benefits in terms of the said clause have already been granted to them. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that even if Clause 5 is assumed to be held applicable to the present petitioners, the petitioners would not be entitled to the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/6500-10500. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of Clause 5, the petitioners were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1200-2500 (revised to Rs.4000-6000) equivalent to the promotional post of Junior Mechanic but in terms of recommendation of SAMTA Committee, the said pay scale was revised and enhanced to Rs.5000-8000 and the same was even granted to the petitioners. Therefore, the additional benefit having already been granted to the petitioners in view of the recommendations of the SAMTA Committee, they cannot now claim the second additional benefit. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case Suresh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10493/2011. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed in the case of Shiv Lal Panchariya (supra) makes it clear that the argument of learned counsel for the respondents therein that the post of the Driver is an isolated post was not accepted by the Court and it was held that the post of the Driver is a promotional post. After holding that the post of Driver is a promotional post, the Court proceeded on to observe as under: “It is also not in dispute that the respondent University adopted Government of Rajasthan circular dated 25.1.1992 and all its subsequent circulars in continuation including the circular dated 17.2.1998. After holding that the post of Driver is a promotional post, the Court proceeded on to observe as under: “It is also not in dispute that the respondent University adopted Government of Rajasthan circular dated 25.1.1992 and all its subsequent circulars in continuation including the circular dated 17.2.1998. As per the circulars referred above, the employees concerned are entitled for getting selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service and such selection grades shall be equivalent to the pay scale applicable for respective promotional post. The post of Driver with the respondent University is not an isolated post and, therefore, the petitioners are certainly entitled for getting pay scale relating to the next promotional post on completion of specific term of service i.e. of 9 years for first selection grade, 18 years for second selection grade and 27 years of service for receiving third selection grade. The respondent University wrongly denied such pay scales to the petitioners by treating the post of drivers as isolated one. The memorandum of understanding arrived between the respondent University and the State Government is also of no consequence as the petitioners are claiming their right as per rules framed by the Board of Management of the University. In view of whatever said above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The petitioners are declared entitled for receiving the pay scale applicable for the post of Junior Mechanic as first selection grade on completion of 9 years of service, the pay scale of Senior Mechanic on completion of 18 years of service and the pay scale applicable for the post of Foreman on completion of 27 years of service. The respondent University is accordingly directed to allow selection grades to the petitioners are per declaration of their entitlement.” 10. It is clear that vide the abovementioned judgment the petitioners were declared entitled for receiving the pay scale applicable for the post of Junior Mechanic as first selection grade on completion of 9 years of service and pay scale of Senior Mechanic on completion of 18 years of service. 11. Here are the cases where the pay scale as prescribed for the post of Junior Mechanic and the post of Senior Mechanic is the same i.e. Rs.5000-8000. 11. Here are the cases where the pay scale as prescribed for the post of Junior Mechanic and the post of Senior Mechanic is the same i.e. Rs.5000-8000. Therefore, the issue for consideration is whether the entitlement of an employee would be in terms of the said pay scales only even if both are same. In the case of Sohan Lal Mathur (supra) while relying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in case of Shravan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2156/2007 decided on 05.09.2008 the Court considered the issue which was relating to grant of selection grade of a person holding the post of Electrician Gr.I having an avenue for promotion to the post of Foreman Gr.II in the same pay scale. While considering the said issue, the Court held as under: “The selection grade satisfies higher emoluments only. If the government do not grant even the higher emoluments then the prescription of selection grade shall be of no consequence. The prescription of same pay scale on competition of 18 years of service as a matter of fact is an illusory benefit and that is not at all grant of selection grade with the spirit of the notification dated 25.1.1992.” 12. Therefore, in view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Sohan Lal Mathur (supra) it can safely be concluded that the grant of the same pay scale on completion of 9 years as well as 18 years of service is an illusory benefit and cannot be termed to be grant of selection grade within the spirit of the notification dated 25.01.1992. 13. Before traversing into the notification dated 25.01.1992, it would be appros to reproduce Clause 4 and 5 of the notification for ready reference. Clause 4 & 5 of the notification dated 25.01.1992 read as under: “4. (i) The first Selection Grade, wherever admissible in terms of this order shall be the pay scale of the next promotion post in the same service/cadre i.e. Class – IV/Ministerial/Subordinate Service; provided that in case there is no next promotion post in the same service/ cadre or the employee does not possess academic qualifications prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts, the first Selection Grade shall be the pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale as specified in paragraph 5. (ii) The second Selection Grade, wherever admissible, in terms of this order, shall be the pay scale of the second promotion post available to that employee in the same service / cadre; provided that in case there is no second promotion post in the same service/ cadre of the employee does not possess academic qualifications prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts, the second Selection Grade shall be the pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale (pay scale of the post held or the selection grade), as specified in paragraph 5. (iii) The third Selection Grade, wherever admissible in terms of this order, shall be the pay scale of the third promotion post available to that employee in the same service / cadre; provided that in case there is not third promotion post in the same service/cadre or the employee does not possess academic qualifications prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts, corresponding to his existing pay scale (pay scale of the post held or the selection grade) as specified in paragraph 5. 5. In case there is no post for first, second or third promotion, as the case may be, in the same service/cadre or the employee does not possess academic qualifications prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts, the Selection Grades shall be as specified below: - S.No. Existing Pay Scale Selection Grade 1. 750-950(1) 775-1025 (2) 2. 775-1025 (2) 800-1250 (3) 3. 800-1250 (3) 825-1350 (4) 4. 825-1350 (4) 950-1680 (6) 5. 910-1520 (5) 975-1720 (7) 6. 950-1680 (6) 1200-2050 (9) 7. 975-1720 (7) 1200-2050 (9) 8. 1025-1800 (8) 1400-2300 (10) 9. 1200-2050 (9) 1400-2600 (12) 10. 1400-2300 (10) (i) in those cases where next promotion post is in a State Service – 2000-3200 (14) (ii) in other cases 11. 1400-2360 (11) 12. 1400-2600 (12) 13. 1640-2900 (13) 2000-3200 (14) 14. 2000-3200 (14) 2000-3500 (15) 15. 950-1680 (6) 1200-2050 (9) 7. 975-1720 (7) 1200-2050 (9) 8. 1025-1800 (8) 1400-2300 (10) 9. 1200-2050 (9) 1400-2600 (12) 10. 1400-2300 (10) (i) in those cases where next promotion post is in a State Service – 2000-3200 (14) (ii) in other cases 11. 1400-2360 (11) 12. 1400-2600 (12) 13. 1640-2900 (13) 2000-3200 (14) 14. 2000-3200 (14) 2000-3500 (15) 15. 2000-3500 (15) 2200-4000 (16) Note - if an incumbent of the isolated post or a person not possessing academic qualifications prescribed for promotion has been granted selection grade before issue of this order and such selection grade is higher than that indicated in this paragraph, he will continue to draw pay in such selection grade as personal to him but the second or third selection grades shall be determined with reference to the first or second Selection Grade which would have been admissible in terms of this paragraph.” 14. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that Clause 4 of the notification dated 25.01.1992 would be applicable to the present petitioners and not Clause 5, it is relevant to note that Clause 4 itself provides that when there is no promotional post available, the first selection grade or the second selection grade would be the pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale (pay scale of the post held on the selection) as specified in para 5. Meaning thereby, even in cases where no promotional post is available, the selection grade payable would be in terms of para 5. The intention of said clause is clear that an employee should be granted the financial upgradation either by way of promotion or by way of grant of the next selection grade. If the promotional post itself provides for the same selection grade as already being paid to the employee, the same cannot be termed to be a financial upgradation or benefit by any means. The same would be an illusory benefit as held in the case of Shravan Kumar (supra). 15. Admittedly, in view of the recommendations of the SAMTA Committee, the pay scale of the petitioners was revised from Rs.4000-6000 to Rs.5000-8000. The same would be an illusory benefit as held in the case of Shravan Kumar (supra). 15. Admittedly, in view of the recommendations of the SAMTA Committee, the pay scale of the petitioners was revised from Rs.4000-6000 to Rs.5000-8000. Having once revised the pay scale, it cannot be open for the respondent-University to say that the same was an additional benefit granted to the petitioners and therefore, now they would not be entitled to the second selection grade payable in terms of para 5 of the notification dated 25.01.1992. The grant of the second selection grade means a financial upgradation by all means and therefore, the petitioners would definitely be entitled to the selection grade of Rs.5500-9000 in terms of the circular dated 25.01.1992. It is also relevant to observe that the case of the present petitioners is not at all different from that of the petitioners in the case of Shiv Lal Panchariya (supra). 16. Therefore, in view of the above observations, the present writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 after completion of 18 years of service qua second selection grade and further Rs.6500-10500 on completion of 27 years of service qua third selection grade. The appropriate orders be passed by the respondent-University within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the present order.