1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to allow benefit of the first selection scale on completion of 9 years of service with effect from 27.02.2005 instead of 27.02.2006 and order dated 04.04.2006 (Annex.-6) may accordingly be amended.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC vide order dated 15.02.1996 in the respondent Department. An inquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 was conducted against the petitioner on several allegations levelled against him. After conclusion of the said inquiry, a penalty of one grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon him vide order dated 23.05.2003 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Colonization Department, Jaisalmer. Against the order of aforesaid penalty, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and appellate authority vide order dated 28.09.2004 partly allowed the appeal and punishment of stopping the annual grade increment was ordered to be reduced to the punishment of censure.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per circular dated 25.01.1992, the petitioner became entitled to get the benefit of first selection grade with effect from 27.02.2005 but vide order dated 04.04.2006 selection-scale was granted to the petitioner with effect from 27.02.2006 instead of 27.02.2005, the day on which he completed 9 years of service.

4. The contest of the petitioner is that the selection scale is delayed for one year for the reason that the petitioner was punished with the punishment of censure vide order dated 23.05.2003; but, in fact, as per the petitioner, the action of the respondents while not granting him selection-scale with effect from 27.02.2005 is illegal in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others, reported in 2004 (2) CDR 925 , in which, the Division Bench has held that punishment of censure shall not come in way of granting selection-scale. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench, reported in 2009 (5) WLC (Raj.) 699, Ramlal Kardia v. State of Rajasthan , in which, it is again held by the co-ordinate Bench that punishment of censure will not come in way for granting the selection-scale. Similarly, in the case reported in 2009 WLC (Raj.) 777, Shankarlal Balai v. State of Rajasthan & Others , the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that penalty of censure is minor penalty and the same is not a bar to the petitioner's promotion. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner is entitled for the selection-scale after completion of 9 years of service with effect from 27.02.2005 instead of 27.02.2006. Upon the above ground it is prayed that the order dated 04.04.2006 may be modified and the respondents may be directed to grant selection scale to the petitioner on completion of 9 years' service with effect from 27.02.2005.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused entire pleadings and judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. It is true that in the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner it has been held by the Division Bench and co-ordinate Bench of this Court that censure cannot be treated as punishment for granting selection scale and promotion but in the judgment reported in 2008 (2) RLW 1350, Chiranji Lal v. R.S.R.T.C. , it was held by me that censure is one of the penalties, therefore, it should be treated as punishment. Para 14 of the said judgment is as follows :

"(14). Upon aforesaid provisions of law, it is clear that penalty of censor is blameworthy factor for the purpose of promotion and it has to be considered at the time of considering the case of promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee in this case according to the respondent, enumerated penalty of censor was inflicted against th