JUDGMENT : This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Civil Appeal No.31/2020 (10/2019), whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.78/2013, whereby the trial Court partly decreed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) for declaration. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration against the defendants mentioned therein that he was appointed as a regular basis on the post of Conductor on 30.06.1984. The Finance Department of State Government issued a circular on 25.01.1992 in which instructions were given regarding grant of selection scales to the State Government employees on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Defendants-Corporation adopted the said circular and implemented the same for their employees as well. Plaintiff completed more than 28 years of service from the date of appointment i.e. 30.06.1984. The Chief Manager, RSRTC Bundi depot vide order dated 05.11.2003 granted him first selection scale on completion of 9 years service w.e.f. 01.11.2003 and accordingly his pay fixation was done vide order dated 21.11.2003, whereas plaintiff completed 9 years of service on 30.06.1993 after counting his length of service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 30.06.1984. Thus, first selection scale was wrongly granted to the plaintiff from 01.11.2003 in place of 30.06.1993. The second and third selection scales on completion of 18 and 27 years of services were not given to him. So, defendants be directed to grant first selection scale to the plaintiff from 30.06.1993 instead of 01.11.2003 and accordingly second and third selection scale be also granted to him on completion of 18 and 27 years of service and the arrears to be paid to him alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. 3. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiff was appointed on the post of Conductor in the Corporation. His services were dispensed with on 25.02.1985. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.02.1988 he was re-appointed on the post of Conductor. 3. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiff was appointed on the post of Conductor in the Corporation. His services were dispensed with on 25.02.1985. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.02.1988 he was re-appointed on the post of Conductor. He was indulged in corrupt practices and remained absent from duty, for which he was awarded different punishments. So, plaintiff was rightly granted the first selection scale from 01.11.2003 and since his services were not found satisfactory, so, he was not entitled to get second and third selection scales. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get first selection scale from the amended date 30.06.1993 instead of 01.11.2003 after counting his length of service from the date of initial appointment i.e. 30.06.1984 and accordingly he is entitled to get second and third selection scale and to get pay band and grade pay in the revised pay scale after his pay fixation? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the difference amount of salary after his aforesaid pay fixation and also entitled to get 12% interest thereon? (iii) Whether the dispute raised by the plaintiff having been fallen in the category of industrial dispute, the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit? (iv) Whether the plaintiff had wrongly valued the suit and paid the deficit court fees? (v) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred? (vi) Relief? 5. To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1-Bachu Singh. Defendants failed to adduce any oral evidence but adduce some documentary evidence. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.2019, partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and held him entitled to get first selection scale on completion of 9 years of service from 29.02.2000 and also entitled to get his pay fixation done accordingly. The plaintiff was also held entitled to get difference of salary after his pay fixation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. 7. Defendants assailed the said order by way of appeal. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2021 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2019. 8. The plaintiff was also held entitled to get difference of salary after his pay fixation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. 7. Defendants assailed the said order by way of appeal. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2021 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2019. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court committed an error in decreeing the suit as also the appeal. Both the courts had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. For corrupt practices and willful absence, the plaintiff was awarded different punishments and on account of his punishments, his date of granting first selection scale date was deferred. He was rightly granted first selection scale on 01.11.2003 and since his services was not satisfactory, so, he was not entitled to get second and third selection scale. So, judgment and decree dated 21.10.2021 passed by the appellate court as well as judgment and decree dated 16.01.2019 passed by the trial court be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that present matter is related to industrial dispute. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to try it. So, on the ground of jurisdiction, second appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. 11. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgments. 12. It is an admitted position that plaintiff was appointed on the post of Conductor on 30.06.1984 but his services was dispensed with on 25.02.1985. He was re-appointed on the post of Conductor on 29.02.1988 and his 9 years of service was completed on 29.02.1997 but during this period, on account of stoppage of three annual grade increments, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to get first selection scale on 29.02.2000 instead of 01.11.2003 and accordingly his pay fixation was ordered to be done. So, in my considered opinion, trial court as well as appellate court had not committed any error in partly decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 13. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the judgments of the trial court as well as appellate court. So, in my considered opinion, trial court as well as appellate court had not committed any error in partly decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 13. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the judgments of the trial court as well as appellate court. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.