JUDGMENT : Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan (for brevity, "the learned Appellate Court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.71/2017 whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants-defendants (for brevity, "the defendants"), the judgment dated 23.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") partly decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") for declaration, has been affirmed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants stating therein that he was appointed as permanent Conductor by the defendant-Corporation in the year 1977 and vide order dated 05.07.1998, he was granted regular pay scale. It was averred that his services were terminated vide order dated 28.07.1982, which was set aside by the learned Court in a civil suit filed by him and ultimately, this Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 17.09.2002 passed in civil second appeal, directed benefit of back wages from the decree dated 14.12.1989 passed by the learned trial Court. He submitted that in pursuance of a Circular dated 25.01.1992 issued by the State Government and adopted by the defendant-corporation, he was entitled for the benefit of first, second and third selection grade on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service respectively. It was alleged that instead of granting him benefit of first selection scale from 25.01.1992 and second selection scale w.e.f 05.07.1996, the defendants have extended the same w.e.f 15.07.2000 and 23.09.2011 respectively and he has not been paid benefit of Assured Carrier Progression (for brevity "ACP") on completion of 27 years of service in lieu of the third selection scale grade on account of implementation of 6th Pay Commission despite completion of 34 years of service. Therefore, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for. 3. The defendants in their joint written statement submitted that the plaintiff has been paid benefit of first and second selection scale w.e.f. 15.07.2000 and 23.09.2011 respectively on account of his bad service record. It was further stated that he was dis-entitled for the benefit of ACP for the same reason. Dismissal of the suit, therefore, was prayed for. 4. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned trial Court framed seven issues. It was further stated that he was dis-entitled for the benefit of ACP for the same reason. Dismissal of the suit, therefore, was prayed for. 4. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned trial Court framed seven issues. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit vide judgment dated 23.02.2017 whereby, the plaintiff was held entitled for the benefit of first selection scale w.e.f 25.01.1992 as claimed; but, was held entitled for the benefit of second selection scale w.e.f. 05.07.2007 instead of 05.07.1996 on account of stoppage of 10 annual grade increments in the intervening period. The civil first appeal preferred there against by the defendants has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 01.11.2017. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.11.2017, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants is that as per the Circulars of the corporation dated 24.04.1994 & 07.05.1998 issued by the defendant-corporation, its employees having bad service record are dis-entitled for the benefit of selection scale. He submits that since, the plaintiff did not have a clean service record, he was dis-entitled for the benefit of first and second selection scale prior to the date the benefit was extended by the corporation. He, therefore, prayed that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2017 be quashed and set aside and the suit be dismissed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Courts, would submit that there are concurrent findings of facts which require no interference by this Court under its second appellate jurisdiction. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the civil second appeal. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. While deciding the issues no.1, 2 & 3 pertaining to entitlement of the plaintiff for grant of selection scales and ACP, the learned trial Court has, after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record and relying upon the Circulars dated 15.02.1997, 18.10.1997 & 24.09.2001 as also judgments of this Court in the cases of Nathulal Sharma v. RSRTC Jaipur & Ors.: 2009 (5) WLC (Raj) 232 and State & Anr. v. Bheem Singh: 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC Pg.8, held that minor punishment except the penalty of stoppage of annual grade increment would not come in way of grant of selection scale to an employee of the Corporation. It was held that though the plaintiff completed 9 years of service as on 05.07.1987, the selection scale would get deferred by one year as he was awarded a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment in the intervening period vide punishment dated 01.04.1979 (Ex.D-1). However, it was held that since, the corporation has awarded benefit of first selection scale to all its employees w.e.f. 25.01.1992, the plaintiff would also be entitled for the same from that date and not from 05.07.1988. 9. With regard to his entitlement for grant of second selection scale, after holding that it fell due in the year 1997; but, on account of imposition of various penalties amounting to stoppage of 10 annual grade increments in all in the meanwhile, it would get extended accordingly, the learned trial Court held him entitled for its grant from 05.07.2007. It was held that although the defendant's witness Shri. Hari Krishan Saini (DW-1) has admitted during his cross-examination that the plaintiff would be entitled for grant of second selection scale w.e.f 1997; but, it was extended by ten years taking into consideration the penalties of stoppage of annual grade increments awarded to him. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Nathulal Sharma (supra), involving identical controversy, held that selection scale of an employee of the corporation would get extended by the period he was awarded stoppage of annual grade increments. 10. Contention of the learned counsel for the defendants based on the Circulars dated 24.04.1994 and 07.05.1998 does not merit acceptance. No such Circulars were exhibited before the learned trial Court as also before the learned Appellate Court. Even otherwise also, taking into consideration the Circulars issued by the defendant-corporation from time to time, i.e., 15.02.1997, 18.10.1997 and 24.09.2001, the plaintiff was held entitled for the grant of first and second selection scale w.e.f. 25.01.1992 and 05.07.2007 respectively. Even otherwise also, a Division Bench of this Court has, in case of State & Anr. (supra), held as under: "4. Even otherwise also, a Division Bench of this Court has, in case of State & Anr. (supra), held as under: "4. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Single Judge at page 3 has allowed the writ petition in the manner allowed by following the said decision in Devi Singh's case, and a subsequent judgment Narendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No 4865/2003 decided on 3.1.2007 also. In Devi Singh's case it has been held that for entitlement to the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9 years of service, the punishment of censure would not come in the way of the employee as giving of selection scale does not involve any selection on merits. In the present case the employee was otherwise entitled to selection scale w.e.f. 5.1.2000 but was given the same w.e.f. 5.1.2003 on account of the fact that the employee suffered one punishment of censure in the year 1994, and another punishment of censure in 1995, and also one punishment of withholding of one grade increment without cumulative effect in the year 1995 on 31.8.1995. 5. The learned Single Judge, in view of the above held that since punishment of censure cannot come in the way of grant of selection scale, however, the punishment of withholding of annual grade increment does come in the way. Therefore, the selection scale has been ordered to be granted w.e.f. 5.1.2001 instead of 5.1.2003, so also instead of 5.1.2000." 11. In view of the aforesaid findings and the precedential law, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Courts did not err in partly decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. 12. Since, learned counsel for the defendants have not been able to satisfy this Court that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned Courts suffer from any illegality, infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference of this Court under section 100 CPC, the civil second appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.