Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jhabar Mal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25188) on 23 May, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:25188]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10384/2025
1. Jhabar Mal S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 264,
Dhani Pipalali, Lakhni, Sikar, Sri Madhopur, Rajasthan.
2. Laxmi Narayan Pachariya S/o Malchand Panchariya, Aged
About 48 Years, R/o Raysar Road, Balaji Nagar, Nokha,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Suresh Kumar Rajoria S/o Chandgi Ram, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Plot No.324, Pooja Colony, Udasar, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Financial Advisor, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
23/05/2025
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)
[2025:RJ-JD:25188] (2 of 3) [CW-10384/2025]
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 from the
date the petitioners became eligible therefor. All
pending applications stand disposed of."
[2025:RJ-JD:25188] (3 of 3) [CW-10384/2025]
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 present writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the petitioners to approach the respondents by way of
filing an appropriate 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 expeditiously,
preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
such representation in accordance with law.
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 their case.
6. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
7-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
