Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narendra Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 May, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:25934]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11119/2025
1. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh Chouhan, Aged
About 47 Years, R/o Village Piparda, Tehsil Rajsamand,
District Rajsamand, Rajasthan. At Present Posting As
Constable Driver Belt No. 832 Reserve Police Line, District
Rajsamand.
2. Jale Singh S/o Shri Syoram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Village Bagria Ki Dhani, Sunnari, Post Sefraguwar, District
Jhunjhunu. At Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt
No. 850 At Reserve Police Line Rajsamand, District
Rajsamand.
3. Yashpal Singh S/o Shri Dunger Singh, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Village Kotela, Tehsil Nathdwara, District
Rajsamand. At Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt
No. 844 At Reserve Police Line Rajsamand, District
Rajsamand.
4. Bhuri Lal S/o Shri Chatra Ji Bhil, Aged About 50 Years, R/
o Village Masiya Ki Bhagal Fatehpur, The. Nathdwara,
District Rajsamand. At Present Posting As Constable
Driver Belt No.824 At Reserve Police Line, District
Rajsamand.
5. Sanjiv Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Ram Dayal Jangid, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o Village Kanwarpura, Post,
Goverdhanpura, District Kotputli. At Present Posted As
Constable Driver Belt No. 830 At Reserve Police Line,
District Rajsamand.
6. Sohan Singh Chundawat S/o Shri Gambheer Singh
Chundawat, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Wadiya Ki
Bhagal, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand. At Present
Posting As Head Constable Driver Belt No. 831 At Reserve
Police Line, District Rajsamand.
7. Ishwar Singh Chundawat S/o Shri Goverdhan Singh, Aged
About 49 Years, R/o Village Jilola, Tehsil Aamet, District
Rajsamand. At Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt
No. 205 At Reserve Police Line, District Rajsamand.
8. Shambhu Singh S/o Shri Rup Singh, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Village Tarot, Post Sakroda, District
Rajsamand. At Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt
No. 834 At Reserve Police Line, District Rajsamand.

(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:46:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25934] (2 of 5) [CW-11119/2025]

9. Ramesh Chandra S/o Shri Sunder Lal Joshi, Aged About
47 Years, R/o Village Samicha, Post Gaunguda, District
Rajsamand. At Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt
No. 846 Reserve Police Line District Rajsamand.
10. Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh Rathore, Aged About
49 Years, R/o Village Vishanpura, Post Ladani, District
Udaipur. At Present Posted As Constable Driver Belt No.
839 Reserve Police Line, District Rajsamand.
11. Laxmi Lal S/o Shri Pyar Chand Khatik, Aged About 54
Years, R/o Village Dhaneriya Garh, District Rajsamand. At
Present Posting As Driver Head Constable Belt No. 829
Reserve Police Line, District Rajsamand.
12. Amar Chand S/o Shri Ram Lal Ganwariya, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Village Kuraj, District Rajsamand. At Present
Posting As Driver Head Constable Belt No. 836 Reserve
Police Line, District Rajsamand.
13. Leeladhar Singh S/o Shri Onkar Singh Rathore, Aged
About 49 Years, R/o Village Nalla Negdiya, District
Rajsamand. At Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt
No. 838 Reserve Police Line, District Rajsamand.
14. Shetan Singh S/o Shri Madan Singh Rathore, Aged About
51 Years, R/o Village Kothariya, Tehsil Nathdwara, District
Rajsamand. At Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt
No. 772 Reserve Police Line, District Rajsamand.
15. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Lal Pareek, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Village Gilund, Tehsil Railmangra, District
Rajsamand. At Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt
No. 833 Reserve Police Line, District Rajsamand.
16. Bhopal Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh Bhati, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Village Dudapura, District Pali. At Present
Posting As Constable Driver Belt No. 852 Reserve Police
Line, District Rajsamand.
17. Bhagwat Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Village Piparda, District Rajsamand. At Present
Posting As Head Constable Driver Belt No. 825 Reserve
Police Line, District Rajsamand.
18. Rishpal Singh S/o Shri Nirbhay Singh Chundawat, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o Village Dudhpura, District
Rajsamand. At Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt

(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:46:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25934] (3 of 5) [CW-11119/2025]

No. 841 Reserve Police Line, District Rajsamand.
19. Jaideep Singh S/o Shri Mohabbat Singh, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Village Jhilwara, Tehsil Charbhuja, District
Rajsamand. At Present Posting As Head Constable Driver
Belt No. 827 Reserve Police Line, District Rajsamand.
20. Shankan Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh Panwar, Aged About
50 Years, R/o Village Taal Ki Bhagal Kunthwa, District
Rajsamand. At Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt
No. 528 Reserve Police Line, District Rajsamand.
21. Kanhaiya Lal Rao S/o Shri Chunni Lal Rao, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Village Gawaradi, Tehsil Relmangra, District
Rajsamand. At Present Posting As Constable Driver Belt
No. 823 Reserve Police Line, District Rajsamand.
----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 Rajsamand,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shaurya Pratap Singh Rathore

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order 27/05/2025

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

[2025:RJ-JD:25934] (4 of 5) [CW-11119/2025]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:25934] (5 of 5) [CW-11119/2025]

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

judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Amar Singh

(supra).