Hari Ballabh Gupta & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan DATE OF ORDER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. Vijay Pathak, for petitioners It has been contended by the petitioners that they were initially selected on the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant and joined service on 19/12/1981 and 20/10/1981 respectively and further appeared for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Accountant in 1986 and after being finally selected were appointed on the post of Junior Accountant on 15/06/1988 and 01/10/1988 respectively. It has further been averred in the writ petition that the selection scale which became due to them on completion of 9 years on 25/01/1992 was granted w.e.f. 15/06/1997 and 01/10/1997 respectively and the selection scale on completion of 18 years of service was granted to them w.e.f. 15/06/2006 and 01/10/2007 and so far as the selection scale on completion of 27 years of service is concerned, on representation being made, the same was granted to both the writ petitioners vide orderd Anx.5 & 6 dt.20/08/2010 & 26/08/2010 respectively. The main thrust of submission of counsel is that the petitioners were entitled for grant of selection scale on completion of 9 years w.e.f. 2 CWP-5758/2011 25/01/1992, 18 years w.e.f. 19/12/1999 & 20/10/1999 respectively but that has not been granted despite representation made. As per petitioners' own saying the benefit of first and second selection grade, on completion of 9 and 18 years of service, was granted to the individual petitioner in the year 1997 and 2006/2007 respectively and if at all the petitioners were aggrieved by the first or second selection scale granted to them, they were at liberty to assail which cannot be permitted to question at such a belated stage and so far as the third selection scale is concerned, the State Government, merely on representation made, considered their grievance and granted benefit to both of them vide orders Anx.5 and 6 and the petitioners are not aggrieved by the benefit of third selection scale granted to them. Taking note thereof, this Court does not find any substance to interfere in the present matter. Consequently, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J.