Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pratap Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:44146) on 8 October, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:44146]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20099/2024

1. Pratap Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o Mukam Lalamandi Post Udamandi Tehsil Buhana
District Jhunjhunu.
2. Ramkishore S/o Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Mukam Post Manglod Tehsil Deh District Nagaur. At
Present Working As Constable (Driver) And Posted At
Office Of The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur, District
Nagaur.
3. Mehram S/o Shri Mangla Ram, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o Mukam Post Gangwana Tehsil And District Nagaur. At
Present Working As Constable (Driver) At Present Working
As Constable (Driver) And Posted At Police Line, Nagaur,
District Nagaur.
4. Ramdev S/o Shri Sangram, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o Mukam Post Mundwa (Kyar Ki Dhani) Tehsil Mundwa
District Nagaur. At Present Working As Constable (Driver)
At Present Working As Constable (Driver) And Posted At
Police Line, Nagaur, District Nagaur.
5. Jetharam S/o Pemaram, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Mukam Ratdi Post Alai Tehsil And District Nagaur. At
Present Working As Constable (Driver) And Posted At
Office Of The Additional Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur,
District Nagaur.
6. Om Singh S/o Gulab Singh, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Mukam Pyanwa Post Khunkhuna Tehsil Didwana
District Didwana-Kuchaman. At Present Working As
Constable (Driver) And Posted At Police Line, Didwana-
Kuchaman District Didwana-Kuchaman.
7. Dayal Singh S/o Amar Singh, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o Mukam Post Umarada Tehsil Data Ramgadh District
Sikar. At Present Working As Constable (Driver) And
Posted At Office Of The Additional Superintendent Of
Police, Kuchaman City., District Didwana-Kuchaman
8. Ganga Bishan S/o Mohan Ram, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Mukam Post Rotu Tehsil Jayal District Nagaur. At
Present Working As Constable (Driver) And Posted At
Office Of The Additional Superintendent Of Police,
Didwana-Kuchaman. District Didwana-Kuchaman.

(Uploaded on 08/10/2025 at 05:35:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/10/2025 at 09:32:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44146] (2 of 6) [CW-20099/2024]

9. Bajrang Lal S/o Gopi Ram, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Mukam Padan Post Satheran Tehsil And District
Nagaur. At Present Working As Constable (Driver) And
Posted At Office Of The Additional Superintendent Of
Police, Nagaur.
10. Mangilal S/o Kheta Ram, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Mukam Dheengsara Post Bhead Tehsil Khiwsar
District Nagaur. At Present Working As Constable (Driver)
And Posted At Office Of The Deputy Superintendent Of
Police, Degana District Nagaur.
11. Kishan Ram S/o Anda Ram, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o Mukam Post Alai Tehsil And District Nagaur. At
Present Working As Constable (Driver) And Posted At
Office Of The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Mundwa
District Nagaur.
12. Bhanwara Ram S/o Bheru Ram, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o Mukam Post Hudiya Tehsil Makrana District Didwana-
Kuchaman. At Present Working As Constable (Driver) And
Posted At Office Of The Police Station, Parabatsar, District
Didwana-Kuchaman.
13. Bhagirath S/o Teja Ram, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o Mukam Post Khangta Tehsil Pipad City District
Jodhpur. At Present Working As Constable (Driver) And
Posted At Police Station, Merta Road, Nagaur, District
Nagaur.
14. Bhanwar Lal S/o Heera Lal, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Mukam Rampura Post Nathawatpura Tehsil And
District Sikar. At Present Working As Constable (Driver)
And Posted At Police Station, Kuchaman City, District
Didwana-Kuchaman.
15. Sharwan Kumar S/o Jeevan Ram, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Mukam Polas Post Chouliyas Tehsil Degana District
Nagaur. At Present Working As Constable (Driver) At And
Posted At Police Station, Degana District Nagaur.
16. Amra Ram S/o Ramjas, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Mukam
Jawali Post Ren Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.
17. Subhash Vishnoi S/o Sahiram, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Mukam Post Alai District Nagaur. At Present Working
As Constable (Driver) And Posted At Police Line, Nagaur.
District Nagaur.

(Uploaded on 08/10/2025 at 05:35:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/10/2025 at 09:32:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44146] (3 of 6) [CW-20099/2024]

18. Hari Ram S/o Ramdev, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Mukam
Post Inana Tehsil Mundwa District Nagaur. At Present
Working As Constable (Driver) And Posted At Police Line,
Nagaur, District Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Financial Advisor, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur, District Nagaur.
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Didwana-Kuchaman,
District Didwana-Kuchaman.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramdev Potalia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rituraj Singh Bhati, Government
Counsel

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

08/10/2025

1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties jointly

submits that the subject matter in the present writ petition is

squarely covered by the order passed by the Division Bench of this

Court on 15.01.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.557/2025

titled as 'Arjun Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.'.

2. The aforesaid order dated 15.01.2025 reads as follows:

"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.

(Uploaded on 08/10/2025 at 05:35:45 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44146] (4 of 6) [CW-20099/2024]

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 promotional post, but thereafter, on completion of 18 years of the services, the respondents did notgrant 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

(Uploaded on 08/10/2025 at 05:35:45 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44146] (5 of 6) [CW-20099/2024]

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 Subinspector 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 are presentation for redressal of their grievances in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Amar Singh(supra).

(Uploaded on 08/10/2025 at 05:35:45 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44146] (6 of 6) [CW-20099/2024]

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."

3. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in same

terms as in Arjun Singh & Ors. (supra).

4. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 7-PoonamS/-

(Uploaded on 08/10/2025 at 05:35:45 PM)