Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahabir Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:42281]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16713/2024
1. Mahabir Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 47
Years, R/o G-78, Rajasthan Police Academy Campus,
Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Present Working At
Place Constable Driver No. 43, Kendriya Bhandar, Police
Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Roop Singh S/o Late Shri Hari Kishan Meena, Aged About
54 Years, R/o A-3, Shankar Vihar, Near New Indian Senior
Secondary School, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Present Working
At Place Constable Driver No. 38, Kendriya Bhandar,
Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Madan Lal Meena S/o Late Shri Suwa Lal Meena, Aged
About 55 Years, R/o Village And Post - Akera, Tehsil -
Amer, District - Jaipur, Present Working At Place
Constable Driver No. 35, Kendriya Bhandar, Police Head
Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Upendra Singh S/o Late Shri Srichand Choudhary, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o Village And Post - Budwal, Tehsil-
Narnaul, District- Mahendragarh, Haryana Present
Working At Place Constable Driver No. 29, Kendriya
Bhandar, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
5. Ravindra Choudhary S/o Shri Suwa Lal Choudhary, Aged
About 47 Years, R/o 12-A, Bandhu Nagar, Murlipura,
Jaipur Present Working At Place Constable Driver No. 34,
Kendriya Bhandar, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
6. Pyare Lal S/o Late Shri Ram Kalyan Sharma, Aged About
48 Years, R/o Village Tholai, Tehsil- Ramgarh, Jaipur
Present Working At Place Constable Driver No. 605, Acd,
Jhalana, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
7. Salim S/o Late Shri Alladin, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Village- Seegra Via- Mandawa, District - Jhunjhunu
Present Working At Place Constable Driver No. 30,
Kendriya Bhandar, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
8. Tara Chand S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Dhayal, Aged About
46 Years, R/o Village - Bhoj Nagar, Via - Parasrampura,
District- Jhunjhunu Present Working At Place Constable
(Downloaded on 17/10/2024 at 09:44:02 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42281] (2 of 4) [CW-16713/2024]
Driver No. 3, Kendriya Bhandar, Police Head Quarter, Lal
Kothi, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
9. Sampat Singh S/o Late Shri Man Singh, Aged About 47
Years, R/o Bharutiya, Post - Luhara, Tehsil - Newai,
District - Tonk Present Working At Place Constable Driver
No. 42, Kendriya Bhandar, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi,
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary (Home),
Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal
Kothi, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Financial Advisor, Police Head Quarter, Rajasthan,
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal
Kothi, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Jhajharia, through VC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
17/10/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
judgment dated 20.12.2023 rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.3873/2019 (Amar Singh & Ors. Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.) in the following terms:-
"10.This Court further observes that the judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the
case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. V/s Banney Khan (D.B.
[2024:RJ-JD:42281] (3 of 4) [CW-16713/2024]
Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 763/2011) was challenged
before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.1766/2015 and the same was affirmed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court on 12.05.2015.
11.This Court also observes that the petitioners were
appointed on the post in question as M.T. Cadre and
thereafter, their next promotional post was Head
Constable and then Sub-Inspector as per the M.T. Cadre,
and therefore it is clear that the petitioners are eligible
for pay scale of the next promotional post, but the said
benefit was denied by the respondents, which is not
justified in law.
12.This Court further observes that the petitioners at the
completion of 9 years of regular services, were granted
the pay scale of the next promotional post, but
thereafter, on completion of 18 years of the services, the
respondents did not grant them the benefits of the next
promotional post, which impugned action is not
sustainable in the eye of law, because the respondents at
the first instance i.e. completion of 9 years of services
considered the petitioners for next promotional pay scale
as per the M.T. Cadre, but at the same time, denied
them the same benefit on completion of 18 years of
service.
13.This Court also observes that the impugned action of
denial of grant of the pay scale of the next promotional
post to the petitioners by the respondents and granting
the petitioners the pay scale of different Cadre i.e.
Assistant Sub inspector is not permissible in the eye of
the law.
14.Thus, in light of the above observations and afore-
quoted precedent laws as well as looking into the factual
matrix of the present case, the present petition is
allowed and the impugned order dated 10.12.2018 is
quashed and set-aside, while directing the respondents
to grant to the petitioners the pay scale benefits of the
next promotional post as per the M.T. Cadre i.e Sub-
Inspector from the date the petitioners became eligible
therefor. All pending applications stand disposed of."
3. In view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of
Amar Singh (supra), learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to approach the
[2024:RJ-JD:42281] (4 of 4) [CW-16713/2024]
respondents by way of filing an appropriate representation for
grant of same relief. Learned counsel further prays that the
respondents may be directed to decide such representation
expeditiously.
4. Considering the limited prayer made by learned counsel for
the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty
to the petitioners to approach the respondents by way of filing an
appropriate representation along with the copy of the judgment
rendered by this Court in the case of Amar Singh (supra) for
redressal of their grievances.
5. In the event of filing such representation by the petitioners,
the respondents are directed to consider and decide the same
expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of such representation.
6. It is made clear that if the case of the petitioners is not
found similar to the case of Amar Singh (supra), then the
respondents shall pass an appropriate speaking order deciding the
representation of the petitioners.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
24-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
