ORDER : This intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant-State challenging the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by learned Single Judge wherein he upheld the order dated 18.04.2017 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. 2. Ms. Sheetal Mirdha - learned AAG submits that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge has been passed while ignoring the applicability of circular dated 04.03.1998 as the same was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and the respondent-employee had already superannuated on 28.02.1997. 3. Learned AAG submitted that the grievance raised by the respondent-employee was in respect of not granting the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9-18-27 years of service as per the circular dated 25.01.1992. 4. Learned AAG submitted that initially the appeal filed by the respondent-employee was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.01.2004, however on writ petition being filed before this Court, the High Court vide order dated 24.11.2005 had set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 09.01.2004 and had remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh. 5. Learned AAG submitted that the respondent-employee was initially appointed as work-charge employee on 23.10.1965 and he was declared as semi-permanent on 22.10.1967 and later on he was brought on regular cadre on 01.03.1979. 6. Learned AAG submitted that the respondent-employee was granted benefit of first selection scale on completion of 9 years of service by counting his service w.e.f. 01.03.1979 and as such, since respondent-employee had completed 18 years of service on 01.03.1997, however, on account of attaining age of superannuation on 28.02.1997, the respondent was not entitled for grant of benefit of selection scale on completion of 18 years of service. 7. Learned AAG submitted that the Tribunal, while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, vide order dated 18.04.2017 has taken into account the different circulars dated 28.02.1994, 04.03.1998 and 24.03.2011. Learned AAG further submitted that since the respondent-employee, had already attained age of superannuation and circular dated 04.03.1998 was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1998, the Tribunal without going into such an important aspect of the matter and without there being any challenge to the said order, passed the impugned order dated 18.04.2017. 8. Learned AAG further submitted that since the respondent-employee, had already attained age of superannuation and circular dated 04.03.1998 was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1998, the Tribunal without going into such an important aspect of the matter and without there being any challenge to the said order, passed the impugned order dated 18.04.2017. 8. Learned AAG further submitted that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants without even considering the applicability of the circular and only a reference has been made that the same was issued on 04.03.1998. Learned AAG further submitted that findings of the learned Single Judge without discussing the applicability of the circular in detail is also incorrect, as the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal did not deal with the issue of applicability of the circular dated 04.03.1998. 9. Learned AAG further submitted that after decision of the State Government to regularize the work-charge employees by various orders, such work-charge employees were brought on regular cadre on completion of 10 years of service by issuing the order dated 28.02.1994. 10. Learned AAG submitted that another circular dated 20.09.1995 was issued by the State Government whereby State Government had decided to grant benefit of selection scale to such work-charge employees after their regularization and they were also held entitled for selection scale on completion of 9-18-27 years of service after such employees being brought on regular establishment. 11. Learned AAG submitted that on a request and demand being made by the work-charge employees to get the benefit of selection scale from the date of their status as semi-permanent, the State Government accordingly amended the earlier order dated 20.09.1995 and by the order dated 03.03.1997, the State Government decided that benefit of selection scale was to be available to the work-charge employees from the date of their declaration as semi-permanent. 12. Learned AAG submitted that the said decision of the State Government and issuance of the circular dated 04.03.1998 was to be made effected from 01.01.1998 and as such, neither the Tribunal nor learned Single Judge has gone into this aspect and has granted benefit to the respondent-employee. 12. Learned AAG submitted that the said decision of the State Government and issuance of the circular dated 04.03.1998 was to be made effected from 01.01.1998 and as such, neither the Tribunal nor learned Single Judge has gone into this aspect and has granted benefit to the respondent-employee. Learned AAG further submitted that since the respondent-employee has already been granted the benefit of the first selection scale on completion of 9 years of service and the other benefits as per prevalent rule, hence circular could not have been made applicable by the Tribunal as well as by learned Single Judge. 13. Ms. Nidhi Sharma - learned counsel for the respondent-employee submits that the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by learned Single Judge is not required to be interfered with by this Court as learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the State. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee further submitted that the writ of certiorari has been exercised by learned Single Judge and as such, the findings recorded by learned Single Judge may not be interfered in the Special Appeal filed by the State. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-employee was granted benefit of permanent status and was brought on regular cadre w.e.f. 01.03.1979 and as such, he had completed 18 years of service in the year 1997 and as such, as per the circular issued by the State Government, he was entitled for the benefits. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee further submitted that the Tribunal had initially rejected the appeal filed by the respondent, however on remanding the matter back by the High Court, the Tribunal has rightly gone into the applicability of different circulars on the respondent-employee and accordingly the Tribunal granted the benefit in favour of the respondent-employee. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee further submitted that the circular dated 24.03.2011 issued by the State Government, also confirmed benefits to such work-charge employees, who had completed their 10 years of service and they were subsequently declared semi-permanent as per the circular dated 04.03.1998. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee further submitted that the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) was also extended to the work-charge employees, who had been regularized and they were declared semi-permanent. 18. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 19. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee further submitted that the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) was also extended to the work-charge employees, who had been regularized and they were declared semi-permanent. 18. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 19. We find that the grievance raised by the respondent-employee initially before the Tribunal was in respect of granting of selection scale on completion of 9-18-27 years of service as per the circular dated 25.01.1992 and the circular was not extended to the work-charge employees, who were not working on regular basis. 20. We find that the Tribunal while deciding the appeal of the respondent-employee has not considered the applicability of the circular dated 04.03.1998 in a proper manner. We further find that the circular dated 04.03.1998, since has been made applicable from 01.01.1998, no such challenge was made either before the High Court or before the Tribunal challenging the applicability of circular dated 04.03.1998. 21. We on a careful reading of the order passed by the Tribunal and also find that the circular dated 24.03.2011 has also been made applicable in a wrongful manner qua the respondent-employee. 22. This Court finds that the circular which was issued specifically in respect of Assured Career Progression (ACP) was not to be made applicable in respect of grant of selection scale on completion of 9-18-27 years of service. We also find that the circular dated 04.03.1998 was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and the respondent-employee had already superannuated on 28.02.1997, the said circular could not have been made applicable on the respondent-employee. 23. This Court on a bare reading of the order passed by learned Single Judge finds that learned Single Judge has only referred to the order passed by the Tribunal and has further observed that the issue has been dealt by the Tribunal, however, we are unable to accept the findings of the learned Single Judge that the issue has been dealt by the Tribunal in a proper manner. 24. We also find that learned Single Judge has not correctly considered the scope of the circular dated 04.03.1998 and learned Single Judge approving the findings of the Tribunal, cannot be accepted by this Division Bench. 25. 24. We also find that learned Single Judge has not correctly considered the scope of the circular dated 04.03.1998 and learned Single Judge approving the findings of the Tribunal, cannot be accepted by this Division Bench. 25. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the service rendered by the respondent from the year 1965 to the year 1979 would go to waste if the benefit of second selection scale is not given, suffice it to say by this Court that if the respondent was brought on regular establishment and he was governed by the RSR, after being declared permanent employee in regular cadre w.e.f. 01.03.1998, he was rightly given the benefit of first selection scale by counting his services from 01.03.1998 and this Court further finds that before the entitlement could be conferred of grant of second selection process in favour of the respondent-employee, he had already attained the age of superannuation and as such, no benefit of second selection grade could have been extended. 26. This Court accordingly, allows this special appeal filed by the appellants-State and set aside the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by learned Single Judge and the order dated 18.04.2017 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur is also quashed and set aside.