Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakesh Kumar Bareth vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 21 May, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:24598] (1 of 3) [CW-10261/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10261/2025
1. Rakesh Kumar Bareth S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Bareth, Aged
About 49 Years, R/o B-138, Vivekanand Nagar, Behind
Police Line Near Maharaj Ki Hotel, District Bhilwara. At
Present Posting As Constable (Band) Belt No. 435 Reserve
Police Line, District Bhilwara.
2. Dinesh Kumar Dholi S/o Shri Bardi Chand Dholi, Aged
About 49 Years, R/o Quarter No. B-36 Reserve Police
Line. At Present Posting As Constable (Band) Belt No. 432
Reserve Police Line, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Government Of Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Financial Advisor, Police Headquarter, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, District Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shaurya Pratap Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
21/05/2025
1. 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 a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3873/2019 (Amar
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) in the following
terms:-
[2025:RJ-JD:24598] (2 of 3) [CW-10261/2025]
"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 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
aforequoted 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
[2025:RJ-JD:24598] (3 of 3) [CW-10261/2025]
from the date the petitioners became eligible therefor. All
pending applications stand disposed of."
2. Learned counsel, therefore, seeks liberty to approach the
respondents by way of filing an appropriate representation for
redressal of petitioners' grievances in light of the judgment
rendered by this Court in the case of Amar Singh (supra). He
further prays that the respondents may be directed to consider
and decide the representation at the earliest.
3. Considering the limited prayer made by learned counsel for
the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the petitioners to approach the respondents by way of filing a
representation for redressal of their grievances in light of the
judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Amar Singh
(supra).
4. In the event of filing such representation by the petitioners,
the respondents shall consider and decide the same in accordance
with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
such representation.
5. Without going into the merits of the case, the present writ
petition has been disposed of considering the submissions made
by learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondent authorities
will be free to examine the representation to be filed by the
petitioners in accordance with law after taking into consideration
the facts and circumstances of his case.
6. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
36-AnilSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
