State And Ors vs Sampat Singh And Anr ... on 16 December, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:54085]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9928/2013

1. State of Director Rajasthan through General of police, Police
Head Quarters, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Inspector General of police, Bikaner Range Bikaner.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Churu.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1. Sampat Singh Son of Shri Samudra Singh, aged about 45
years, Resident Kanakpura, Tehsil and District Churu. (Raj).
Presently posted as constable in office of Superintendent of
Police, Churu.
2. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Bench
at Jodhpur.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Raj Singh Bhati for
                                Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, GC
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Manvendra Singh for
                                Mr. D.S. Sodha



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

16/12/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order

dated 01.02.2013 (Annexure-3) passed by the Rajasthan Civil

Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench Jodhpur whereby the

appeal as filed by respondent No.1 stood allowed.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in question

rests covered by a Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court

passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3873/2019; Amar Singh

& Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 20.12.2023).

(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 10:37:08 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54085] (2 of 5) [CW-9928/2013]

3. In Amar Singh (supra), the Court while relying upon the

earlier Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in D.B. Civil

Spl. Appeal (Writ) No.763/2011; State of Rajasthan & Ors.

vs. Banney Khan (decided on 02.08.2011) observed and held as

under:

"9. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgments rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the cases of Shiv Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 934/2012, decided on 04.12.2014) and Madho Singh Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 843/2005, decided on07.03.2017), as hereunder:-

Shiv Prakash (Supra) "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Banney Khan (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.763/2011, decided on 2.8.2011 and order of Single Bench dated 7.2.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9440/2009 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Chandan Mal & Anr.), decided on 7.2.2013. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the same and agrees that the matter is squarely covered by the said judgment.

The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.763/2011 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Banney Khan) vide its order and judgment dated 2.8.2011 upheld the order of the Single Bench, vide which, the order impugned therein dated 30.10.2003 resulting in withdrawal of the benefit already granted, was quashed. ....... It is stated that the judgment has been duly upheld and MT selection grade stands released to the similarly situated employer In view of the above, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in M.T. selection grade instead of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the General Section."

Madho Singh (Supra) "Both the learned counsel for the parties are ad-ideam that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition

(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 10:37:08 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54085] (3 of 5) [CW-9928/2013]

stands concluded by the decision rendered by the a coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.934/2012 (Shiv Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 4.12.2014, which was decided in light of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ)No.763/2011 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Banney Khan, decided on 02.08.2011 which has since been upheld right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They, therefore, pray that the instant writ petition may also be decided in light of the directions given in the said writ petition.

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the light of decision rendered in Shiv Prakash's case (supra), the operative portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing D.B. CivilSpecial Appeal (W) No.763/2011 (State of Rajasthan & Ors.Vs. Banney Khan) vide its order and judgment dated 2.8.2011 upheld the order of the Single Bench, vide which, the order impugned therein dated 30.10.2003 resulting in withdrawal of the benefit already granted, was quashed. Para15 of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Banney Khan (supra) reads as under:-

"15. It is not in dispute that the impugned order cancelling/recalling of the order granting benefit to the writ petitioner was passed without affording any opportunity to the writ petitioner. In other words, it is an admitted fact that the impugned order dt.30.10.2003, which resulted in withdrawal of benefit already granted to the writ petitioner by its order dt.27.12.2001 was passed without giving any show cause notice to the writ petitioner and without affording the many opportunity to show cause as to why such benefit which was originally granted be not withdrawn and that too on what grounds? In our opinion, this was a case where show cause notice was required to be given to the employee concern because it amounted to withdrawing of the benefit initially given to him. It is not in dispute that the benefit of grant of selection grade to the writ

(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 10:37:08 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54085] (4 of 5) [CW-9928/2013]

petitioner was a valuable benefit and hence the same could not have been taken away from the writ petitioner (respondent herein) without first giving him an opportunity and informing him the proposed grounds as to why and on what basis and for what valid and legal reasons, the benefit though granted earlier is now required to be withdrawn and that it can not continue any more. This was not a case of the State where, the benefit was granted to the writ petitioner due to any mistake or/and misrepresentation made at his instance whereas it was a clear case where the State of their own came out with passing of the orders referred supra and granted benefit to the writ petitioner. The least, therefore, which was expected of from the State was to give show cause notice to the writ petitioner and all such employees proposing their action before passing the impugned order adverse to the writ petitioner. In such event, the writ petitioner would have been in a position to defend the grant of selection grade to them on the grounds available to them. It was not done. The writ petitioner in their writ petition had taken this ground specifically but the same was not replied to much less effectively by the State."

It is stated that the judgment has been duly upheld and MT selection grade stands released to the similarly situated employer. 3 In view of the above, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in M.T. selection grade instead of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the General Section.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above 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. 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

(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 10:37:08 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54085] (5 of 5) [CW-9928/2013]

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 benefitsof 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."

4. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is

dismissed and the respondents are directed to comply with the

order impugned as passed by the learned Tribunal.

5. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 9-KashishS/-

(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 10:37:08 AM)