JUDGMENT Sudesh Bansal, J. - This appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the appellants-defendants-RSRTC (hereinafter `the RSRTC') against judgment and decree dated 18-11-2014 in First appeal No.10/2010 passed by additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan while dismissing appeal affirmed the judgment and decree dated 6-4-2010 in Civil Suit No.167/2006 passed by the additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2 Jaipur Metropolitan whereby and whereunder respondent-plaintiff's civil suit for declaration has been partially decreed in his favour and against the RSRTC in the following manner:- (a) Plaintiff has been declared to be entitled for benefits of selection scales from the date of his first regular appointment as Conductor i.e 08.07.1987. (b) for first selection scale on completion of 9 years on 08.07.1996 notional benefits only and actual benefits w.e.f. 27.05.1999 when plaintiff was reinstated in service and (c) for second selection scale, though the period of 18 years completed on 08.07.2005 but since plaintiff suffered penalties prior to and post to such date, hence it has been left upon the employer RSRTC to determine to date, after analysis of the service record of plaintiff, from which the second selection scale would be payable to plaintiff. 2. The facts culled out from the record are that plaintiff joined his duties on regular post of Conductor pursuant to his appointment vide order dated 08.07.1987 but he was removed from service on 27.08.1987. Plaintiff challenged his removal by filing civil suit, which was decreed, allowing his reinstatement with back wages vide judgment dated 29.09.1994. The litigation travelled up to the Supreme Court where vide order dated 13.10.1998, plaintiff agreed to forgo the back wages and as per settlement, order of reinstatement was upheld. The plaintiff was reinstated in service on 27.05.1999. Since plaintiff was not given benefits of selection scales on completion of 9 and 18 years of service in accordance with the circular dated 25.01.1992 of the State Government, the present civil suit for declaration was laid. Initially suit was decreed vide judgment dated 05.12.2007 but on filing first appeal by RSRTC, judgment was set aside and suit was remanded. after remand, the trial Court has decreed the suit vide judgment dated 06.04.2010 in the manner stated hereinabove. 3. Initially suit was decreed vide judgment dated 05.12.2007 but on filing first appeal by RSRTC, judgment was set aside and suit was remanded. after remand, the trial Court has decreed the suit vide judgment dated 06.04.2010 in the manner stated hereinabove. 3. The trial Court relying upon circular dated 09.01.2004 (Exhibit-5) issued by RSRTC, which says that in case of removal and then reinstatement of any employee, if he forgoes his back wages out of settlement, the period of his removal would be counted for the purpose of calculation of period for grant of selection scale. It was observed that though this circular dated 09.01.2004 was later on withdrawn with immediate effect vide order dated 19.11.2007 (Exhibit-15), however, remain in force during the interregnum, hence, plaintiff's case for claim of selection scale is covered by the said circular dated 09.01.2004. accordingly, the trial Court allowed notional benefits of first selection scale to plaintiff, counting his period from date of his first regular appointment, w.e.f. 08.07.1987, including his period of removal from 28.08.1987 to 26.05.1999 but actual benefits allowed from date of his reinstatement in service w.e.f. 27.05.1999. 4. While considering the case of plaintiff for second selection scale, the trial Court has taken into consideration that plaintiff has suffered with several type of penalties, penalty of Rs.4000/- on 03.02.2003, stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect with penalty of Rs.2000/- on 20.08.2005 and penalty of Rs.4000/- on 31.10.2005 i.e. prior to and post to period of completion of 18 years on 08.07.2005, therefore, it has been left open for RSRTC to determine the date from which plaintiff can be awarded benefits of second selection scale. as per office orders dated 21.05.2004 and 16.09.2004, issued by RSRTC, if any delinquent earns penalty upto Rs.5000/-, his selection scale can be stopped for one year. The trial Court has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in case of State Vs. Bheem Singh [(2009) WLC (Raj.) UC page 8]. 5. In this appeal, counsel for plaintiff referred the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Shanker Lal Parmar, [ (2011) 14 SCC 235 ] wherein the apex Court held that an employee with blemished, polluted, tainted, unclean service record cannot be equated with other employee who has enjoyed clean, unblemished, unpolluted, untainted and impeccable service record. Shanker Lal Parmar, [ (2011) 14 SCC 235 ] wherein the apex Court held that an employee with blemished, polluted, tainted, unclean service record cannot be equated with other employee who has enjoyed clean, unblemished, unpolluted, untainted and impeccable service record. Such differentiation on the basis of classification based on intelligbile differentia was held by the apex Court not violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State was permitted to grant selection grade to those who had good service record but the same could be deferred by one year for those who had earned censure. Such classification of category was held permissible and in accordance with mandate of the Constitution. 6. a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that since the Court below has left open to RSRTC, to analyse the service of plaintiff in order to determine the date from which second selection scale would be payable, to this the principle of law as set out in case of Shanker Lal Parmar (supra) shall be taken into consideration by RSRTC, 7. as such impugned judgment of the trial court based on evidence oral and documentary led by both parties deciding issues in favour of plaintiff did not require any interference. First appellate court also finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by trial court found no force in the appeal filed by defendants and dismissing the same affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. the entitlement of plaintiff for the benefits of selection scale cannot be denied. RSRTC has already been set at liberty to fix the date for granting selection scale to plaintiff. 8. In view of above, impugned judgment and decree passed by courts below do not require any interference by this court in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC. there is no force in this second appeal and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 9. Stay application also stands disposed of. 10. all pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.