ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to grant her Higher Super Time Pay Scale Post with effect from 01.08.2018. 2. The petitioner also feels aggrieved against the order dated 01.08.2018, as the same has not granted the benefit of Higher Super Time Scale to the petitioner in the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee conducted for the Vacancy year 2018-2019. 3. The facts, as pleaded in the nutshell, are that the petitioner had appeared in a competitive examination conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) for recruitment to the various State and subordinate Services. The petitioner participated and passed the main examination of which result was declared on 23.02.1992. The petitioner appeared in interview on 08.04.1992 and as such the dispute was raised by not accepting the preference given by the petitioner for a particular service at the time of interview. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that after her interview, she was placed at Serial No.34 in the General Merit and the persons, who were lower in merit, were given the call letter and the petitioner was denied the same right and as such the petitioner filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6421/1992 and the same was came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.05.1997. 5. This Court while deciding the petition, gave a direction that if merit of the petitioner was above the candidate, who has been offered appointment, then the petitioner should also be considered for such service. 6. The order passed by the Single Bench was put to challenge by the State of Rajasthan and Rajasthan Public Service Commission, however, the Division Bench passed the judgment on 07.12.2001 and upheld the order of the Single Bench. 7. The petitioner has pleaded that when the judgment was not complied with, she had to file a contempt petition and later on the respondents issued an order dated 13.03.2002, whereby the order issued in respect of similarly situated persons vide order dated 06.11.1992 was amended and the petitioner’s name was added in between Serial No.8 i.e. Brijesh Kumar Sharma and Serial No.9 i.e. Shri Abid Khan. 8. The petitioner has pleaded that seniority of the petitioner was assigned between aforesaid two persons and further a shadow/supernumerary post was created. 8. The petitioner has pleaded that seniority of the petitioner was assigned between aforesaid two persons and further a shadow/supernumerary post was created. The respondents decided to grant benefits to the petitioner on notional basis and actual benefits were to be given from the actual date of joining. 9. The petitioner has pleaded that after issuance of the order dated 13.03.2002 subsequently an order dated 20.12.2002 came to be issued and the petitioner was fixed in the ordinary pay scale of Rajasthan Accounts Service with effect from 07.12.1992 and her pay was fixed on notional basis with effect from 07.12.1992 till 01.09.2002 and she was fixed at the pay of Rs.9925/-. 10. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents by an order dated 23.06.2004 granted the benefit of Senior Scale to the petitioner against the vacancies of the year 1998-1999 and she was assigned her place rightly below one Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma and above Shri Abid Khan. 11. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents by issuing an order dated 29.05.2013 granted the selection scale to the petitioner against the vacancies of the year 2009-10 and her name was mentioned at Serial No.2 in the order dated 17.11.2004. 12. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents considering the service record and seniority of the petitioner also granted Super Time Scale to the petitioner against the vacancies of the year 2013-14 by an order dated 29.05.2013. The petitioner has pleaded that proper seniority was assigned to her below one Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma and above Shri Abid Khan, as is reflected from the order dated 29.05.2013. 13. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents issued an order dated 01.08.2018, whereby they considered cases of eligible persons for grant of Higher Super Time Scale and surprisingly the person above the petitioner i.e. Brijesh Kumar Sharma and the person below the petitioner Abid Khan had been considered and granted Higher Super Time Scale with effect from 01.09.2018 & 01.12.2018 respectively but name of the petitioner did not find place. 14. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents while undertaking the exercise of granting Higher Super Time Scale, had placed the name of the petitioner at Serial No.21 in respect of consideration of cases falling within the zone of consideration. 15. 14. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents while undertaking the exercise of granting Higher Super Time Scale, had placed the name of the petitioner at Serial No.21 in respect of consideration of cases falling within the zone of consideration. 15. The petitioner has pleaded that though her name was reflected at Serial No.21 amongst eligible candidates, however, the respondents took the impugned decision of not granting Higher Super Time Scale to the petitioner by considering the date of joining of the petitioner with effect from 13.03.2002 and as such the respondents found that since the petitioner had not completed 25 years of required service for the purpose of grant of Higher Super Time Scale, she was not to be granted this benefit. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondents, is an arbitrary order and the same is passed without non application of mind. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents while considering the case of the petitioner for the grant of Senior Scale, Selection Scale and Super Time Scale, have always reckoned the period of joining of the petitioner as 06.11.1992, while considering her case for the purpose of grant of Higher Super Time Scale, the respondents arbitrarily picked up the date of joining of the petitioner as 13.03.2002. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents while granting the Senior Scale to the petitioner against the vacancies of the year 1998-99, had taken into account the services of the petitioner with effect from 1992, as the minimum requirement for grant of Senior Scale, is 5 years and if the date of joining of the petitioner dated 13.03.2002 would have been the basis, the petitioner would not have been granted even the Senior Scale with effect from 1998-99. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the likewise manner, while the petitioner was considered for Selection Scale, the minimum 10 years of service was required and the respondents while granting Selection Scale to the petitioner, granted her the benefit from the year 2009-10. 20. Learned counsel submitted that even for Super Time Scale 18 years of service is required and accordingly the respondents took into account the date of joining of the petitioner as 06.11.1992 and not 13.03.2002. 21. 20. Learned counsel submitted that even for Super Time Scale 18 years of service is required and accordingly the respondents took into account the date of joining of the petitioner as 06.11.1992 and not 13.03.2002. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute, which was raised by the petitioner in respect of her appointment was settled long back, as per the directions issued by the Single Bench, as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and only actual payment was to be given to the petitioner from the date of joining and all other notional benefits were to be given and accordingly the orders were passed from time to time granting benefit to the petitioner and only while considering case of the petitioner for Higher Super Time Scale, the respondents cannot be allowed to take a U-Turn and deprive the petitioner from her due consideration for the purpose of grant of Higher Super Time Scale. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.B.M.Sandhu submitted that the requirement is provided in the Notification dated 20.07.2011 for the purpose of grant of Higher Super Time Scale and the candidate has to work in Super Time Scale post and 25 years of service in all as a member of the service is required to be eligible, for appointment on the Higher Super Time Scale Post. 23. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner since has been granted Super Time Scale post and she has also completed 25 years of service and as such the respondents cannot deprive the petitioner of her entitlement of Higher Super Time Scale Post. 24. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents have not committed any illegality in not granting the Higher Super Time Scale to the petitioner, as she has not completed 25 years of service, since she has actually joined her services on 13.03.2002 and accordingly the Competent Authority took a decision of not granting Higher Super Time Scale to the petitioner. 25. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner as and when will complete her 25 years of service, the Department is always free to undertake necessary exercise of granting Higher Super Time Scale Post to the petitioner but without completing the required service of 25 years and actual working of the petitioner, no benefit can be granted to her. 26. 26. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner has not acquired the actual experience of working for a total period of 25 years of service and notional benefit given to the petitioner may be relevant for the purpose of giving her emoluments and other monetary benefits, the same cannot be taken into account for the purpose of actual experience, which is required for the post. 27. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner though was not given appointment along-with other candidates, however, only by virtue of judicial intervention, if she has been given appointment, no benefit should be allowed to her except the notional benefit, which has already been granted to her. 28. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Notification dated 20.07.2011 issued by the Department of Personnel specifically provides that a person has to be appointed on a Super Time Scale Post and must have completed 25 years of service in all as a member of the service and then only such person will be eligible for appointment on the Higher Super Time Scale Post. 29. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in the instant case, the appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner was also by granting a Shadow/Supernumerary Post and if there was no post available against which the petitioner could have been appointed way back in the year 1992, her actual working from the year 2003, is to be taken into account. 30. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 31. This Court on a careful reading of the order passed by the respondents on 13.03.2002 finds that the petitioner was given her appointment by amending the order dated 06.11.1992, as vide order dated 06.11.1992, appointment was given to different persons, who were lower in merit and the order dated 13.03.2002 further placed the petitioner below one Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma and above one Shri Abid Khan and as such the candidate lower in merit i.e. Abid Khan was placed below the petitioner in the original appointment order dated 06.11.1992. 32. 32. This Court finds that once the petitioner was assigned her due place, as per her own merit and initial appointment order dated 06.11.1992 was amended, the petitioner is required to be considered as having been appointed in the year 1992 itself for all purposes. 33. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents while considering the case of the petitioner for grant of Senior Scale, Selection Scale and Super Time Scale, have always taken into account the year of joining of the petitioner as 1992 and she was never treated to have joined in the year 2002. 34. The respondents by their own conduct and by passing the orders for promotion from time to time, if have treated the petitioner as duly appointed with effect from 1992, it will be absolutely unjustified on the part of the respondents to treat the petitioner differently for the purpose of grant of Higher Super Time Scale. 35. This Court further finds that service record of the petitioner and her seniority position was always considered by the respondents while granting her promotion in Senior Scale, Selection Scale and Super Time Scale and she was always placed below one Brijesh Kumar Sharma and above Abid Khan. 36. This Court further finds that in the impugned Order dated 01.08.2018, the respondents have granted Higher Super Time Scale to above named two persons and the petitioner has been left out and this omission on the part of the respondents to consider case of the petitioner, does not seem to be justified from any stretch of imagination. 37. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not rendered actual service and she did not gain the actual experience of 25 years is noted, to be rejected. 38. This Court finds that if the petitioner has been treated to be appointed in the year 1992 for all purposes then only on account of issuance of order of appointment and her joining on 13.03.2002, the same cannot mean that the petitioner is to be treated as appointed in the year 2002. 39. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the Notification dated 20.07.2011, requires the actual experience and actual working of the petitioner, the same submission of learned counsel for the respondents is not accepted. 40. 39. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the Notification dated 20.07.2011, requires the actual experience and actual working of the petitioner, the same submission of learned counsel for the respondents is not accepted. 40. The bare reading of the amendment inserted in the Notification dated 20.07.2011 shows that a person/member of service has to be in Super Time Scale Post and he/she should have completed 25 years of service in all and then such person will be eligible for appointment in the Higher Super Time Scale Post. 41. The word “Actual Experience” or “Actual Working” has wrongly been attracted by leaned counsel for the respondents. This Court even otherwise has come to conclusion that once the petitioner has been treated to be appointed with effect from 1992, for all purpose except financial benefits, it will be too late in a day to take the plea while considering the case of the petitioner for grant of Higher Super Time Scale Post that she has been appointed in the year 2002. 42. This Court finds that the respondents though had inserted the name of the petitioner amongst the eligible candidates for Higher Super Time Scale Post, however, while decision was taken by the respondents as per the note-sheets filed by the petitioner, she was not considered eligible. The respondents have taken a wrong decision in an arbitrary manner to exclude the petitioner for the purpose of grant of Higher Super Time Scale Post. 43. This Court finds substance in the submissions made by leaned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have not taken into account all the previous orders, where they have always found that the petitioner has been assigned her due seniority and placement in the Senior Scale, Selection Scale and Super Time Scale in Rajasthan Accounts Services. 44. This Court finds that the respondents have not acted in a proper manner and have wrongly ignored/not considered the case of the petitioner for grant of Higher Super Time Scale. 45. This Court also find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 01.08.2018 has included name of the above named two persons i.e. Brijesh Kumar Sharma and Abid Khan and they have wrongly ommitted the petitioner’s consideration for grant of Higher Super Time Scale. 46. 45. This Court also find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 01.08.2018 has included name of the above named two persons i.e. Brijesh Kumar Sharma and Abid Khan and they have wrongly ommitted the petitioner’s consideration for grant of Higher Super Time Scale. 46. This Court, accordingly allows the present writ petition and directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Higher Super Time Scale, as per service record and seniority of the petitioner against the vacancies for the year 201819 and if the petitioner is found otherwise suitable, she may be conferred all the benefits, which may flow from her appointment on the post of Higher Super Time Scale, including the monetary benefits on account of her promotion on the Higher Super Time Scale, from the date when she becomes entitled to get the same. The aforesaid exercise may be carried out by the respondents within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.