1. - By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure-P/5 dated 30.07.1998 and seeks quashing of the said order with consequential benefits.

2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 28.12.1965. Later he was promoted on the post of Head Constable on 30.6.1978. He was further promoted on the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector in the month of November 1997. On completion of 18 years of service, as per the State Government order dated 25.01.1992, the petitioner was granted selection scale by the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 26.6.1992, Annexure-P/1. Thereafter, on completion of 27 years of service, the petitioner was granted third selection scale in pursuance of the State Government's order dated 25.01.1992 vide order dated 26.5.1993 Anneuxre-P/2. On 23.07.1992, the Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur passed order to the effect that if an employee is awarded 'censure' then his services cannot be treated as unsatisfactory and such employees are entitled for the selection pay-scale. However, subsequently, by order Anneuxre-P/4 dated 24.08.1995, another order came to be passed by the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur to the effect that the employees who have been awarded penalty of 'censure' after 24.8.1995 would not be entitled for selection scale. In pursuance thereof, the order Anneuxre-P/5 came to be passed directing to make a recovery for the amount paid to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed supporting the order impugned on the ground that the petitioner has been awarded the penalty of censure on 5.10.1988. Again on 5.10.1988 & 23.2.1989 and stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect on 26.5.1994 and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner's services were satisfactory and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for the selection scale and on the strength of this submission, it is submitted that the respondents are justified in making the recovery vide order impugned Annexure-P/5.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Firstly, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that penalty of imposed censure during the services of an employee cannot be considered as unsatisfactory service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2004(2)CDR 925 (Raj.) and a decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Dayal Meena v. Distt.Collector Tonk, 2008(3) RLW 2306 (Raj) .

6. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the second selection scale was granted to the petitioner by order dated 26.6.1992 and the third selection scale by order dated 26.5.1993. The penalty of withholding of one grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner on 26.5.1994. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that penalty withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect by order dated 26.5.1994 has also been taken into consideration for the grant of third selection scale in the year 1993 which is not proper. Learned counsel has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Kuldeep Singh Chauhan & Ors., RLW 1998(2) Raj. 816 wherein this Court observed as under:-

"(9) A conjoint reading of all paragraphs of the Circular makes it clear without any doubt that an employee who completes 9 years of service from the date of his first appointment in the existing cadre becomes entitled to get first Selection Grade, provided his service record is satisfactory. Thus, he becomes eligible to get first Selection Grade on completion of 9 years service, as such, his service record to judge his suitability for granting fir