1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging order of respondents in delaying grant of selection grade in terms of Circular dated 25.1.1992 by one year. Shri Hridayesh Singh, learned counsel for petitioner has contended that respondents have granted him selection scale after one year on 09.11.2007 though it became due to him on 09.11.2006. Learned counsel argued that grant of selection scale cannot be equated with promotion. Learned counsel relied on Division Bench judgment of this Court in Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC, 327 and argued that selection grade only confers higher pay in same post and is intended to prevent stagnation. Division Bench in said case has held that censure cannot be made basis for withdrawal of selection scale granted. It is, therefore, prayed that action of respondents in delaying grant of selection scale to petitioner by one year be held to be illegal and respondents be directed to grant him selection scale 09.11.2006 instead of 09.11.2007.

2. Shri M.F. Baig, Deputy Government Counsel for respondents, opposed writ petition and argued that according to Government Circular dated 25.1.1992 selection scale is granted on basis of satisfactory service record and, therefore, parameters that are applicable to case of promotion would equally apply when employee is considered for grant of selection scale. It was argued that petitioner was during relevant period awarded penalty of censure. Finance Department had issued a circular dated 17.2.1998, according to which grant of selection scale has to be deferred by one year for each penalty and, therefore, petitioner would become entitled to get selection grade by one year late.

3. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused material available on record and also Division Bench judgment in Devi Singh (supra), I find that Division Bench considered this very question in the context of withdrawal of selection grade already granted. In that case too, selection grade was withdrawn because of punishment awarded to a constable. In present case also, respondents are seeking to delay grant of selection scale to petitioner on account of penalty of censure. Division Bench observed that grant of selection scale could not be equated with promotion as selection scale has to be granted to every person on completion of specified period of service without having any promotion. It is a personal amelioration scheme which is intended to prevent stagnation of the employees of lower echelons of service who have not got any promotion before 9, 18 & 27 years of their service, as the case may be. In para Nos. 19 to 21, it was observed that:-

"Likewise, Union of India v. S.S. Ranadey, (1995)4 SCC 462 was a case in which promotion to the Selection Scale was not automatic and personal to incumbent but involved an element of selection and higher pay scale was restricted to certain number of posts. Admittedly, this case also cannot be applicable for considering the grant of Selection Scale to the employees in Class IVth Ministerial and Subordinate Services. Likewise, in State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand Soni, (1996)1 SCC 562 it has been held that the Selection Scale could not be granted without considering the suitability and merit of the employee. The case of Lalit Mohan v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1972 SC 995 was a case in which the Pay Commission has recommended that a certain percentage of the posts in the grade, usually 10 per cent should carry a somewhat higher scale of pay even though there will be no change in the duties. Following the terminology in vogue these posts have been described as selection grade posts. With this background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that it well recognised that a promotion post is a higher post with a higher pay. A selection grade has higher pay but in the same post. A selection grade is intended to ensure that capable employees who may not get a chance of promotion on accou