[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gori Shanker Dholi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:2835]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23319/2025
1. Gori Shanker Dholi S/o Shri Banshi Lal Dholi, Aged About
49 Years, R/o House No. G-78 Ward No.45, Police Line,
Bhilwara, District Bhilwara. At Present Posted At Reserve
Police Line Bhilwara, Belt No.423
2. Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Hanuman Ram, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Near Pani Ki Tanki Indra Colony, Christianganj,
Ajmer, District Ajmer. At Present Posted At Reserve Police
Line Ajmer, Belt No.667
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Secretariat Jaipur,
Governemnt 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.
5. The Superintendent Of Police, District Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Singh Bhati for
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
16/01/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy in question rests covered by the judgment passed by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.557/2025: Arjun Singh Tanwar & Ors. Vs. State of
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:39:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2835] (2 of 4) [CW-23319/2025]
Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matters (decided on
23.09.2024).
2. Learned counsel for the respondent-Department does not
refute the above submission and agrees that the present issue
would be covered by the said judgment.
3. In the case of Arjun Singh Tanwar (supra), it was
observed and held as under:
"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 benfit 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
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:39:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2835] (3 of 4) [CW-23319/2025]
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 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
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:39:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2835] (4 of 4) [CW-23319/2025]
consideration the facts and circumstances of his case.
6. Stay application also stands disposed of,
accordingly."
4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is also
disposed of on the same terms and conditions as in Arjun Singh
(supra).
5. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition. The respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the
petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
118-manila/-
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:39:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
