[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narayan Dan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:51795-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 465/2021
1. Narayan Dan S/o Reevu Dan, Aged About 52 Years,
Khariya Soda, Sojat City, Pali.
2. Sunil Kumar Meena S/o Banwari Lal Meena, Aged About
40 Years, Village And Post Holiya Ka Bas, Sikar.
3. Mahipal Singh S/o Jodha Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 46
Years, Village Bhimsagar, P.s. Lahawat, Jodhpur.
4. Chatra Ram S/o Ratna Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Village
And Post Gong, Tehsil Raniwara, Jalore.
5. Deepa Ram S/o Dedaram, Aged About 48 Years, Mahara
Kallan, Pali.
6. Sheru Khan S/o Koju Khan, Aged About 48 Years, Madal
Pura, Jalore.
7. Shyam Lal S/o Mangla Ram, Aged About 50 Years, Bagri
Nagar
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. Bhagwat Singh S/o Hukam Singh, Aged About 48 Years,
Village Sadara, Post Lotara, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Sushil Solanki
For Respondents : Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG with
Mr. Deepak Chandak
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Judgment
01/12/2025
1. In the instant appeal, the challenge is to the order passed by
the learned Single Judge on 08.09.2020.
(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 05:15:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51795-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-465/2021]
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Standing
Order issued by the DGP on 23.10.2017 provided for considering
awards, rewards, appreciation letters and commendation letters
for the period when the concerned person has been holding the
post of ASI and further it also allows those Head Constables, who
have passed the eligibility test for promotion to the post of ASI, to
also get the benefit of such awards and commendation certificates
issued from the date, the Head Constable has cleared the
proficiency test.
3. It is an admitted position that the respondent was promoted
as ASI with effect from 2016-2017 while he passed the proficiency
test in December, 2019. Thus, there are two circumstances when
the awards, rewards and appreciation letters can be taken into
consideration. Firstly, where present Head Constable has passed
the proficiency test and thereafter, has received the awards, the
other is from the date he has already been promoted as ASI.
4. In the present case, while the proficiency test was cleared in
2019, promotion has been granted with effect from 2016-2017.
Therefore, all the awards and rewards from the year 2016-2017
onwards were required to be granted for the purpose of
considering the case of such an individual for further promotion to
the post of S.I. Thus, the learned counsel's contention that the
word 'actual post' should be considered to mean from the date of
promotion, would deny such person from consideration of the
awards received, though from an earlier year of promotion.
5. We do not agree with him. Once a person is promoted
against a substantive post from the year 2016-2017, he would be
(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 05:15:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51795-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-465/2021]
entitled to all the actual benefits from that day. Only his pay and
allowances are notionally fixed. Thus, for all purposes, he would
be deemed to be promoted as ASI and all the rewards, which he
has received from the concerned year of promotion would have to
be taken into consideration for further promotion to the post of
S.I.
6. Learned counsel has further submitted that he was not
impleaded as a party to the proceedings, however, we find that so
far as the petitioner is concerned, he was admittedly lower in
merit, his awards would be curtailed. Further he was not required
to be impleaded as a party. The name of the writ petitioner was
based on his own service record and which was to be considered
by the police authorities. The police authorities admittedly have
not challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is
also informed that order has already been complied with.
7. The view expressed by the learned Single Judge, therefore,
does not warrant any interference. The appeal is misconceived and
is accordingly dismissed.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
6-pooja/-
(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 05:15:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
