[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Namo Narayan Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:12911]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23906/2025
Namo Narayan Meena S/o Shri Ranjeet Meena, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Vijay Govindpura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2. The Director General, (Prisons), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Inspector General, Jail Range, Udaipur-Kota-Ajmer,
Range, District Udaipur (Raj.).
4. The Superintendent Of Central Jail, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bheru Lal Jat
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
18/03/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur
Bench in Raghuveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20358/2018 (decided on
05.12.2022).
2. In Raghuveer Singh's case (supra), the Court observed
and held as under:-
"38. On bare reading of Rule 14, it is clear that
while framing the rules the rule framers were of the
opinion that the Government servant can be
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 07:01:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12911] (2 of 4) [CW-23906/2025]
imposed with the penalty of either(I) 'Censure', or
(II) 'Withholding Annual Grade Increment' or'
Withholding Promotion'. The language of the said
rule clearly speaks that rule framers were of the
view that while in case of imposing penalty of
'withholding annual grade increment', the same
itself will not adversely affect the avenue of
promotion, if the Government servant is otherwise
found suitable. The rule framers while incorporating
the penalty of 'withholding annual grade increment'
or 'withholding promotion' with a specific intention
used the word "or" in between 'withholding annual
grade increment' and 'withholding promotion'. By
using word "or" the intention of the rule framers is
very clear that in case of imposing penalty of
'withholding annual grade increment' their intention
is not to withhold the promotion avenue of the
Government servant merely on account of penalty.
Withholding annual grade increment and withholding
promotion are different kinds of penalties which may
be imposed upon Government servant. Meaning
thereby, if penalty of 'withholding annual grade
increment' is imposed on a Government servant,
that cannot be termed to be a penalty of
'withholding promotion' also.
On consideration of the provisions of the Rules
this Court is of the view that rule framers were not
having intention to withhold the promotion of a
Government servant merely on account of imposing
penalty of 'Censure' or 'Withholding the annual
grade increment'. If that would have been the
intention of the rule framers they would have
mentioned in the Rule 14 as 'withholding annual
grade increment' and 'withholding promotion' but
they have mentioned the penalty as 'withholding
annual grade increment' "or" 'withholding
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 07:01:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12911] (3 of 4) [CW-23906/2025]
promotion'. 39. In view of the discussions made
above, this Court safely can held that withholding
promotion for a Government servant on account of
imposition of penalty of 'Censure' or 'withholding
increment' is illegal and arbitrary and
unconstitutional and therefore the Circular issued by
the respondent- State in this regard disasters to be
set aside.
40......
41.....
42.....
43.....
44. So considering the provisions of Rules and the
law laid down in various judgments, as referred
above, this Court can safely held that the Circular
dated 04.06.2008 issued by the Department of
Personnel to the extent of depriving the Government
servants from consideration for promotion in case of
criteria for promotion being Seniority- Cum-Merit on
account of penalty of 'Censure' or withholding
increments, is not sustainable and deserves to be
set aside.
45. Accordingly, the present writ petition is
allowed. The order of penalty dated 30.05.2013,
passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Jaipur, the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the
Commissioner of Police, Jaipur and also the order
dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Joint Secretary
Government of Rajasthan (Appeal) and so also the
Circular dated 04.06.2008 issued by the Department
of Personnel to the extent as observed in above
paras, are quashed and set aside. The petitioner
shall be entitled for all consequential benefits which
accrue to him as if no such order of penalty was
ever passed against him.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 07:01:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12911] (4 of 4) [CW-23906/2025]
46. The exercise for promotion or review so as to
extend the consequential benefits to the petitioner,
be completed by the respondents within a period of
three months from today.
47. In view of the order passed in the main
petition, the stay application and pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of."
3. In view of the submissions made, present writ petition is
disposed of on same terms and directions as those passed in
Raghuveer Singh (supra).
4. However, respondents would be free to examine the veracity
of submissions made in present petition and, only in case,
averments made therein are found to be correct, appropriate
orders shall be passed in favour of petitioner.
5. Stay petition and all other pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
21-JatinS/-
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 07:01:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
