Order : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the award dated 26.09.2016 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in ITR Case No.178/2000 by which the claim submitted by the petitioner for grant of selection scales on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service has not been granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on probation for a period of two years on the post of Conductor vide order dated 20.10.1984. Learned counsel submits that services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents vide order dated 11.01.1985 against which the petitioner preferred a Civil Suit and the same was decreed vide order dated 08.01.1990 and his termination order was quashed with a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner back in service. 3. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 08.01.1990, the petitioner was reinstated back in service on 03.02.1990 with all back-wages. Learned counsel submits that after reinstatement of the petitioner, the Regular First Appeal was preferred by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.1990, however, the same was rejected by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.04.1996. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment passed by the First Appellate Court was again assailed by the respondent before the Second Appellate Authority by way of filing Second Appeal, however, the same was also rejected vide judgment dated29.10.2002. 4. Learned counsel submits that against the judgment dated 29.10.2002, the Civil Appeal No.592/2005 was submitted before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the respondents. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with such like matters and it was only the Industrial Court who can entertain/decide such disputes. Learned counsel submits that while disposing of the aforesaid appeal vide impugned judgment dated 17.11.2005, a liberty was granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the petitioner to raise industrial dispute before the Industrial Court and an order of status quo was passed in favour of the petitioner to be maintained till disposal of the matter by the Industrial Court. 5. 5. Learned counsel submits that soon thereafter an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner by way of filing statement of claim in LCR No.148/2007, the said claim submitted by the petitioner was allowed vide award dated 27.10.2008 and the termination order of the petitioner dated 11.01.1985 was held to be invalid and the same was quashed and set-aside. Learned counsel submits that in compliance of the award passed by the Tribunal the petitioner has been taken back in service, hence, he is not entitled to get back-wages. Learned counsel submits that in the concluding Para of the award, it was held and observed by the Industrial Tribunal that the petitioner would not be entitled to get regular pay and allowance and he would be entitled to get minimum wages only as the petitioner has raised the dispute individually and not through the Union. 6. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid award dated 27.10.2008 was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10307/2009. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.10.2011 by granting liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue before the appropriate forum as per the provisions of law. 7. Learned counsel submits that, thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Industrial Tribunal for grant of the benefits of selection scales on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service. Learned counsel submits that the Ld. Industrial Tribunal has not decided the matter on its merits but the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 26.09.2016 only on the technical count that the termination order of the petitioner dated 11.01.1985 was not declared as invalid by the Industrial Tribunal, hence, under these circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of aforesaid selection scale. 8. Learned counsel submits that while passing the impugned award dated 26.09.2016, the Tribunal has lost its sight whilst perusing the award dated 27.10.2008, wherein the termination of the petitioner was found to be invalid and the same was quashed and set-aside. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 11. Since the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are not disputed and all the above facts are admitted on the record, this fact is not in dispute that while deciding the earlier claim petition submitted by the petitioner against his termination order dated 11.01.1985, the Industrial Tribunal while passing the impugned award dated 27.10.2008 has quashed and set-aside the termination order of the petitioner. It appears that while passing the impugned award dated 26.09.2016, the Industrial Tribunal has lost its sight and over-looked the findings recorded at Para 22 of the award dated 27.10.2008. 12. Para 22 of the award dated 27.10.2008 clearly indicates that the termination order of the petitioner dated 11.01.1985 was held to be invalid and the same was quashed and set-aside. 13. Looking to the fact that after passing of the judgment and decree by the Civil Court i.e. 08.01.1990, the petitioner was taken back in service on 03.02.1990 and, thereafter, the petitioner remained continuously in service without any break, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service. The petitioner is also entitled to get interest, as per the circular dated 03.11.2021. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all the applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. 15. Needless to observe that the respondents would comply with the order passed by this Court expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.