JUDGMENT
R.P. Vyas, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dtd. 24.3.2004 Annex. 1 passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’.
2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as LDC vide order dated 18.1.1989 and he joined the duties on 21.1.1989. Therefore, the petitioner passed the efficiency test vide order dated 4.3.1993.
3. Further case of the petitioner is that the State Government issued a notification dtd. 25.1.1992 providing for grant of selection grade to the Government employees on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The petitioner was not granted 1st selection grade on completion of 9 years of service, therefore, he submitted a representation, on which the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 6.4.1999 informed the petitioner that he has passed the efficiency test and has been confirmed on 30.3.1993. Therefore, the 1st selection grade shall be payable to him in the year 2002.
4. The petitioner further submits that the similarly situated persons viz. Shri Praveen Chand Singhvi and Shri Jawad Ahmed filed .appeals before the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal for granting the benefits of selection grade, while counting their services from the date of initial appointment, which was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 26.6.2000 Annex. 10.
5. When the petition was not granted the selection grade while counting the services from the initial date of appointment, he submitted an appeal before the learned Tribunal, which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 24.3.2004 on the ground of delay.
6. The respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 17.4.2004 Annex. 16 again informed the petitioner that since the initial appointment of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis, therefore, he is not entitled to get selection grade from the date of his initial appointment.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Tribunal has committed serious error in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay as denial of selection grade to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment is a recurring cause of action as the petitioner is denied of the benefit of grant of selection grade every month on receipt of the lower salary. If he had been granted selection grade while counting his services from the date of initial appointment, he would have not higher salary than the present one. However, the learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter in correct prospective. Accordingly, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is perfectly in accordance with the law as the appeal was filed against the order dated 6.4.99 on 28.1.2004 i.e. a delay of about 5 years and as per Sec. 9 of the Act of 1976, the limitation for filing appeal is 60 days from the date of impugned order. The learned Counsel for the respondents also submits that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of selection grade from the date of passing the efficiency test, in the year, 1993.
9. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and scanned the entire material available on record.
10. It is an admitted position on record that the petitioner was initially appointment as LDC vide order dtd. 18.1.1989 under the relevant service Rules and he jointed the duties on 21.1.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner passed the efficiency test vide order dated 4.3.1993 and he has been confirmed on 30.3.1993.
11. In my opinion the learned Tribunal is wrong in holding that the appeal is barred by limitation. The petitioner has been denied the benefit of selection grade from the date of initial appointment and on account of denial of selection grade, the petitioner is being deprived of higher salary every month. Thus, the cause of action involved in the instant petition is a recurring cause of action. Therefore, the rejection of appeal by the learned Tribunal on the ground of delay is erroneous and the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set-aside.
12. The controversy involved in the instant petition regarding grant of selection grade was set at rest by the larger bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Farooq Ahmed and Ors. 20051 WLC Raj. 1 : RLW 20051 Raj. 565. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Farpoq Ahmed supra, the larger Bench of this Court has observed that where a person is appointed on adhoc/temporary basis in accordance with Rules and in time-scale, period of ad hoc/temporary services rendered by him before his regularisation should be counted for the purpose of grant of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service.
13. The Larger Bench while dealing with the fact of that case also interpreted “Regular Appointment” and observed as under:
“… to mean an appointment in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules to the post. In other words, if the appointment was in accordance with the rules, it was to be counted for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade. Thus “Regular appointment whether tem-porary/adhoc or of any nature, in order to be rules.”
14. Since the controversy involved in the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Farooq Ahmed supra therefore, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Farooq Ahmed supra and the order dated 24.3.2004 Annex. 1 is quashed and set- aside.
15. No order as to costs.