[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Naresh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13614]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6141/2026
1. Ram Naresh S/o Shri Lumba Ram, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o Plot No. 31 Mohan Bagh, Uchiyarda Road, Shikargarh,
District Jodhpur. At Present Posting As Driver At Reserve
Police Line Belt No. 1067, District Jodhpur.
2. Bhagwan Prasad S/o Shri Ram Chander, Aged About 52
Years, R/o House No 88 Gandhi Pura, Street No. 2, B.j.s.
Colony, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. At Present Posting As
Driver At Reserve Police Line Belt No. 1455 (1704),
District Jodhpur.
3. Ram Swaroop Singh S/o Shri Durga Singh, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Plot No. 16 Kamla Nehru Colony, New Power
House Road, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. At Present
Posting As As Driver At Reserve Police Line Belt No.
1449 , District Jodhpur.
4. Rameshwar Singh S/o Sawai Singh, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o Village Bhesar Khutdi Kot, Tehsil Tiwari, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan. At Present Posting As Driver At
Reserve Police Line Belt No. 1459 , District Jodhpur.
5. Ajay Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/
o Village_Post Chainpura, Bawari Mandor, Tehsil And
District Jodhpur. Present Posting As Driver At Legal Cell
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.
6. Raghunath Singh S/o Ram Singh, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o Plot No. 142, Mohan Nagar 'a' Gali No. 4 Bjs Colony,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. At Present Posting As Driver
At Reserve Police Line Belt No. 998, District Jodhpur.
7. Bheem Dan Charan S/o Nain Dan Charan, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Chopasni Charnan, Post Mathania, Tehsil
Tiwari, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. At Present Posting As
Driver At Reserve Police Line Belt No. 301, District
Jodhpur.
----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,
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 10:24:30 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:49:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13614] (2 of 4) [CW-6141/2026]
Rajasthan.
3. The Financial Advisor, Police Headquarter, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Commissioner Of Police, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. The Superintendent Of Police, District Jodhpur Rural,
Rajasthan.
6. The Superintendent Of Police, District Jodhpur City,
Rajasthan.
7. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, District
Jodhpur.
8. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range,
District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shaurya Pratap Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
23/03/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 10:24:30 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13614] (3 of 4) [CW-6141/2026]
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."
2. Learned counsel, therefore, seeks liberty to approach the
respondents by way of filing an appropriate representation for
redressal of petitioner's 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 petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the petitioner to approach the respondents by way of filing a
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 10:24:30 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13614] (4 of 4) [CW-6141/2026]
representation for redressal of his 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 petitioner,
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 petitioner. The respondent authorities
will be free to examine the representation to be filed by the
petitioner in accordance with law after taking into consideration
the facts and circumstances of his case.
6. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any,
stands disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
13-JatinS/-
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 10:24:30 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
