ORDER 1. The appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2009 in civil suit No.307/2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Divison) No.4, Bharatpur, whereby his suit for declaration of permanent injunction was dismissed, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 07.10.2017 in civil regular appeal No.153/2016. 2. The relevant facts, as culled out from record, are that the appellant-plaintiff was appointed as work charge helper on 10.04.1964 and he claimed his promotion on the post of Meter Reader on the basis of one memorandum of settlement dated 22.04.1971. The case of plaintiff was referred to the Settlement Committee and the Committee vide order dated 18.03.1999 declined the promotion of the plaintiff. It was held by the Settlement Committee in its order dated 18.03.1999 that the plaintiff has already been accorded the benefit of pay fixation and selection scale, since he does not possess the requisite educational qualification, he is not entitled for promotion on the post of Meter Reader. The plaintiff has assailed the order of Settlement Committee dated 18.03.1999 by way of filing present civil suit on 30.05.2002 alongwith a prayer for permanent injunction to grant promotion as well as the notional benefits on the post of Meter Reader. 3. Heard learned counsel for appellant. 4. During course of argument, counsel for appellant fairly submits that petitioner was granted promotion on the post of Meter Reader in the year 1990 and thereafter he has retired from the service. However, he claimed that he is entitled to get promotion taking into account his service from the date of his first appointment i.e. 10.04.1969 and for consequential benefits although notionally. 5. Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Ram Rakh Bishnoi Vs. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Jodhpur & Anr. reported in 2003 WLC (Raj.) UC 742. 6. The trial Court in its judgment dated 04.11.2009 has appreciated statements of witnesses while examining the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.04.1971, on the basis of which the appellant is claiming his right of promotion on the post of Meter Reader. It has been observed that the educational qualification up to secondary pass is required for promotion and appellant does not possess such minimum qualification. It has been observed that the educational qualification up to secondary pass is required for promotion and appellant does not possess such minimum qualification. The claim of promotion on the basis of Memorandum of Settlement was also examined by the Settlement Committee in its order dated 18.03.1999 and trial court did not find any infirmity in the order dated 18.03.1999 and declined to quash the same. 7. The trial Court has dismissed the appellant's suit, which has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. As far as the ratio decidendi passed in the case of Ram Rakh Bishnoi (supra), the same does not render any help to the appellant in the present case as facts and circumstances are entirely different. In that case, the issue was that the delinquent claimed salary for the post on which he rendered his services and the issue was 'taking work without paying', this is not the case in hand. Findings recorded by the courts below are findings of fact, which are duly based on appreciation of evidence. The substantial questions of law as proposed by appellant are essentially questions of fact which required re-appreciation of evidence and the same is not permissible within the scope of Section 100 CPC. 8. It is trite law that involved substantial questions of law is sine qua non in order to exercise the scope of Section 100 CPC, since no substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal and the same is bereft of merit. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Second Appeal is dismissed. Any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) dismissed.