[2026:RJ-JP:12633-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1399/2019 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11591/2019 K.. Verma S/o Late Shri Rampal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o A- 245, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus 1. State Bank Of India, Through Chief General Manager, Secretariat, Local Head Office, Bhadra, Post Box No. 300, Ahmedabad-380001 2. State Bank Of India, Through Deputy Managing Director And Corporate Development Officer (Appellate Authority), Corporate Centre, Mumbai 3. State Bank Of India, Central Human Resources Committee (Chrc), (Review Committee), Through Deputy Managing Director, Corporate Centre, Mumbai ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal, Adv. with Mr. Laxmi Kant Mr. Vibhanshu Sharma Ms. Kalpana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 25/03/2026 None present on behalf of the appellant to argue the matter. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-writ petitioner challenging the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Single Judge [2026:RJ-JP:12633-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-1399/2019] dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition in para Nos. 4 & 5 observed as under:- “4. Learned counsel submits that the stagnation increments for grade as the petitioner was not promoted to SMGS-IV and the same were required to be protracted after punishment order. 5. I have considered the submissions and found that in terms of the Rule 67(g) the petitioner has been punished with reduction to a lower post of MMGS-III. Thus, he would be entitled to grade which is available to the post of MMGS -III at the maximum. Any grade increment given to him in lieu of promotion known as stagnation increment would therefore not be available to him as he has been punished and therefore any grade increment which are actually in the grade pay of SMGS-IV would not be applicable, otherwise, the very purpose of punishment would be rendered redundant.” Counsel for the respondents submits that punishment of reduction on a lower post was awarded to the petitioner and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner is entitled for the pay-scale of post on which he has been reverted. We have gone through the record. We have gone through the record. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and in our considered view, no interference is required. Hence, this appeal stands dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /39