[2025:RJ-JP:4174-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 33/2020 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5129/1999 1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Through Its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Settlement Committee, Through Its Coordinator, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 4. Assistant Engineer, D III, R.S.E.B., Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus Brijendra Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri M.L. Sharma, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 27/492, Manu Marg Circle, Opp. Beej Godown, Naya Bas, Alwar (Survived By) (A) Bimla Devi Sharma Widow Of Late Brijendra Kumar Sharma, Aged 54 Years, R/o 27/492, Manu Marg Circle, Opp. Beej Godown, Naya Bas, Alwar. (B) Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Brijendra Kumar Sharma, Aged 36 Years, R/o 27/492, Manu Marg Circle, Opp. Beej Godown, Naya Bas, Alwar. (C) Sarju Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Brijendra Kumar Sharma, Aged 32 Years, R/o 27/492, Manu Marg Circle, Opp. Beej Godown, Naya Bas, Alwar. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat for Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bajrang Lal Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 30/01/2025 1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants (Department) challenging the order dated 11.07.2019 whereby [2025:RJ-JP:4174-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-33/2020] the writ petition filed on behalf of respondent-Brijendra Kumar Sharma for grant of Selection Scale was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted the circulars dated 06.03.1992 and 27.03.1997 while grating benefit to the petitioner. 3. We have perused the circulars dated 06.03.1992 and 27.03.1997. 4. Learned Single Judge considered both the circulars dated 06.03.1992 and 27.03.1997 and held as under:- “8. Taking into consideration above, this court finds that as per original circular dated 6.3.1992 whereby the Department had prescribed grant of selection scales, the petitioner would not be entitled to receive the benefit of selection scale, however, since the respondents themselves have relaxed the said condition by issuing another circular dated 27.3.1997, counting the earlier period of service, he would be entitled for the same. 9. This court finds that the petitioner was earlier working on the post of Meter Reader Grade-II from 9.3.1973 and was granted promotion subsequently in the pay scale of No.3 vide order dated 21.5.91 with effect from 10.3.1973, the petitioner would be entitled to count that period of service rendered on the post of Meter Reader Grade-II for the purpose of grant of selection scale and the said period from 1973 to 1975 would be counted for the purpose of grant of selection scale on completion of 9 years of service in terms of circular dated 27.3.1997 since the similarly situated persons who were holding the [2025:RJ-JP:4174-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-33/2020] post of LDC have been allowed that benefit. The services rendered on the lower post of Meter Reader Grade-II shall be allowed as count period rendered by them on the lower post of Helper Grade-II/Class-4 Employee. 10. In the opinion of this court, the case of the petitioner is a better footing than the employees who have granted benefit of previous service on lower post for counting total service of 9, 18 & 27 years for grant of selection scale whereas the petitioner though worked on the post of Meter Reader Grade II and thereon LDC he was drawing the same pay scale and was thus entitled to stagnation benefit for grant of selection scale. 11. The petitioner is thus held entitled for grant of benefits of selection scale from 10.3.1973. The exercise of revised fixation shall be conducted within a period of three months henceforth. He is also held entitled for arrears.” 5. We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and in our considered view, no illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition. It is an admitted position that the department for similarly situated persons has also given benefit of Selection Scale in view of the circular dated 27.03.1997. 6. We have also considered the fact that during pendency of the writ petition the original petitioner has expired and all the retiral benefits have already been paid to the widow of the original petitioner by the Department. 7. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:4174-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-33/2020] 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J sunita/44