[2025:RJ-JP:30689] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7081/2002 Shaitan Singh S/o Shri Pooran Singh, aged about 52 years, Resident of 1/67, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur at present working as Head Constable (Driver) Department of Police Telecommunication, Ghatgate, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through Director General of Police, P.H.O. Jaipur. 2. Insurance General Police Telecommunication Directorate, Ghatgate, Jaipur. 3. Additional Superintendent of Police (Admn. & H.Q.) Ghatgate, Jaipur. 4. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zaid Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/08/2025 1. Laying challenge to order dated 05.08.2002 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No.46/2001 whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable vide order dated 28.09.1974, yet only after a few months thereafter, he was posted as Constable (Driver) and M.T. allowance was also being paid to him right from the beginning. [2025:RJ-JP:30689] (2 of 3) [CW-7081/2002] 3. It has been stated that pay scale admissible to Constable General and Constable (Driver) are altogether different; and different selection grades have been provided by the respondent-Government for aforesaid two posts. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that instead of granting petitioner second selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000, lower scale was given to him. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Amar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3873/2019) decided on 20.12.2023 wherein, this Court has held as under:- "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 afore-quoted precedent laws as well as [2025:RJ-JP:30689] (3 of 3) [CW-7081/2002] 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." 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also does not dispute that the case of the petitioner is also covered by the aforesaid judgment of Amar Singh (Supra). 6. In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, directing the respondents to grant the petitioner same relief which has been granted by this Court in the case of Amar Singh (Supra). (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /19