Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nawal Kishor Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 May, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:24960]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10721/2025
1. Nawal Kishor Singh S/o Shri Udai Singh, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Village Bhakarwardi, Tehsil Uniyara, District
Tonk, Rajasthan. At Present Posting As Constable Driver
Belt No. 1405 Police Line, District Bhilwara.
2. Rajjak Khan S/o Shri Anwar Khan, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o Village Kamalpura, Tehsil Banera, District Bhilwara. At
Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt No. 1402 At
Police Line Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.
3. Sabbir Hussain S/o Ismail Khan Kayamkhani, Aged About
50 Years, R/o Shahpura, District Bhilwara. At Present
Posting As Constable Driver Belt No. 1408 Shahpura,
District Bhilwara.
4. Halim S/o Akbar Kha Deshwali, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Village Jahajpur, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara. At Present
Posting As Constable Driver Belt No. 1409 At Pander
Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.
5. Parwat Singh S/o Shri Bheru Singh Chundawat, Aged
About 48 Years, R/o Mali Kheda Manikya Nagar, Bhilwara,
District Bhilwara. At Present Posted As Constable Driver
Belt No. 1421 At Sadar Thana Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.
6. Bhupendra Singh S/o Shri Kalyan Singh, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Village Tiloli, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara. At
Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt No. 1417 At Co.
Office Mandal Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.
7. Bharat Singh S/o Shri Jorawar Singh, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Village Salampura, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.
At Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt No. 1436 At
Police Line Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.
8. Pukharaj Jat S/o Shri Sohan Lal Jat, Aged About 52 Years,
R/o Village Jawanpura, Tehsil Hurda, District Bhilwara. At
Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt No. 1393 At
Police Station Rayla, District Bhilwara.
9. Sanwarmal Sharma S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma,
Aged About 48 Years, R/o Rk Colony, Bhilwara, District
Bhilwara. At Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt No.
1415 Police Line Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.
10. Devendra Giri Goswami S/o Shri Shiv Giri Goswami, Aged
About 51 Years, R/o Rajput Colony, Bhilwara, District
Bhilwara. At Present Posted As Constable Driver Belt No.
1412 At Additional Superintendent Of Police Headquarter
Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.
11. Devendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Ram Singh Rathore,
Aged About 48 Years, R/o Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara, District
Bhilwara. At Present Posting As Horse Rider Head
Constable Belt No. 1281 Police Line Bhilwara, District
Bhilwara.
12. Ramsawroop Balai S/o Shri Bheru Lal, Aged About 50
(Downloaded on 22/05/2025 at 09:43:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24960] (2 of 4) [CW-10721/2025]
Years, R/o Malan Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara, District
Bhilwara. At Present Posting As Horse Rider Belt No. 1320
Police Line Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.
13. Omprakash S/o Shri Madanlal Ji, Aged About 50 Years, R/
o Sangari Gate, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara. At Present
Posting As Constable Horse Rider Belt No. 1369 Police
Line Bhilwara, 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
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:24960] (3 of 4) [CW-10721/2025]
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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:24960] (4 of 4) [CW-10721/2025]
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
266-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
