Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mohan Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10116 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 10116 Raj
Judgement Date : 22 May, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mohan Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 May, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:24957]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10714/2025

1.       Mohan Lal S/o Shri Rampal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
         Post Baru, Tehsil Rashmi, District Chittorgarh, At Present
         Posted As Driver At Police Station Chittorgarh. Belt No.
         1461.
2.       Shambhu Dayal S/o Ramsukh Sharma, Aged About 50
         Years, R/o House No. 277, Darwaje Ke Bahar, Village
         Dhanet Kalan, Chittourgarh, District Chittourgarh, At
         Present Posting As Driver At Additional Superintendent Of
         Police Office, Chittourgarh. Belt No. 1456.
3.       Ummed Singh Ranawat S/o Shri Hari Singh Ranawat,
         Aged    About         49    Years,      R/o     Village     Aachhora,       Post
         Semalpura, Tehsil Bassi, District Chittaurgarh. At Present
         Posting As Driver (Mt) At Police Line Belt No. 1457.
4.       Balveer Singh Choudhary S/o Shri Sugar Singh, Aged
         About 48 Years, R/o Jatav Mohalla, Budhwari Kalan,
         Khatoti,      District      Bharatpur.        At     Present      Serving    At
         Bherodgarh, District Chittarugarh. Belt No. 1487.
5.       Nagji Ram Jat S/o Shri Madhav Jat, Aged About 50 Years,
         R/o    Plot     No.      36,   Near       Temple,       Post     Tana,   Tehsil
         Bhopalsagar, District Chittaurgarh. At Present Serving At
         Police Station Nikumbha, District Chittorgarh, Belt No.
         1459.
6.       Bheru Lal S/o Shri Ratan Lal Teli, Aged About 45 Years, R/
         o     Near    Barodiya,         Chittorgarh          District     Chittorgarh,
         Rajasthan. At Present Serving At Police Line Chittaurgarh
         Belt No. 1486.
7.       Narendar Bhaskar S/o Shri Hem Chandra Bhaskar, Aged
         About 50 Years, R/o Village Ghassu, Tehsil Lakshmangarh,
         District Sikar. At Present Posted At Police Line, District
         Chittourgarh, Belt No. 590.
                                                                         ----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.

                         (Downloaded on 22/05/2025 at 09:43:57 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:24957]                       (2 of 4)                          [CW-10714/2025]


3.        The      Financial       Advisor,        Police   Headquarter,            Jaipur,
          Rajasthan.
4.        The   Superintendent            Of   Police,      District       Chittourgarh,
          Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. S.P.S. Rathore



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

22/05/2025

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:-

"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

[2025:RJ-JD:24957] (3 of 4) [CW-10714/2025]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:24957] (4 of 4) [CW-10714/2025]

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 265-Payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter