[2025:RJ-JP:28572] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11264/2025 1. Hanuman Prasad, S/o Shri Rajaram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Mukam, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.) Constable Driver No. 698. 2. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Sukhram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Matoriya Wali Dhani, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.). Constable Driver No. 1023. 3. Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Ramkumar, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Bass Chnani Post Office Bajgarh, District Churu (Raj.). Constable Driver No. 1057. 4. Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Jagan Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Manaksar, Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.). Constable Driver No. 1131. 5. Surendra Kumar, S/o Shri Ramlal Swami, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Vpo Mallar Khera, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) Constable Driver Belt No. 1107. 6. Ajaib Singh S/o Shri Ram Kishan, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Manaksar, Tehsil Sangriya, Hanumangarh (Raj.). Constable Driver No. 1059. 7. Satyanarayan S/o Shri Ladhu Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Bolnawali, Tehsil Sangaria, Hanumangarh (Raj.) Constable Driver Belt No. 250. 8. Jagdish Singh S/o Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Vpo Badbirana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.). Constable Driver Belt No. 475. 9. Ravidarshan S/o Shri Devilal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Malarampura, Tehsil Sangria, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) Constable Driver Belt No. 697. 10. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Sahabram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ratanpura, Tehsil Sangariya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.). Constable Driver Belt No. 1005. 11. Amin Khan, S/o Shri Hanif Khan, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Vpo Dholipal, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.). Constable Driver Belt No. 886. 12. Subhash Chander S/o Shri Devilal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Naina Wali Dhani, Ward No. 11, 4 Dlp, Kikarwali, Tehsil Sangaria, Hanumangarh (Raj.). Constable Driver 1065 13. Kuldeep Kumar S/o Shri Sahab Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Vpo Dhabar, Tehsil Sangariya, Hanumangarh (Raj.). Head Constable Mt 45. 14. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Bajrang Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Vpo Satyu, Tehsil Taranagar, Churu (Raj.). Constable Driver Belt No. 1048. ----Petitioners [2025:RJ-JP:28572] (2 of 4) [CW-11264/2025] Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Superintendent of Police, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. 4. Financial Advisor, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Udit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Ms. Kavita Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 29/07/2025 1. With consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the writ petition has been heard finally on merits. 2. Petitioners, by means of filing instant writ petition, have raised a common grievance for not granting the selection scale for the post of Sub-Inspector on completion of 18 years of service from the post of Constable. It has been pointed out that petitioners belong to M.T. Cadre and since promotional post of ASI from Head Constable is not available, petitioners are eligible and entitled to get selection scale on next promotional post i.e. Sub- Inspector. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised by petitioners in the instant writ petition has been answered positively, by the Coordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur vide Judgment dated 20.12.2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition [2025:RJ-JP:28572] (3 of 4) [CW-11264/2025] No.3873/2019 titled Amar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., placing reliance on the judgment rendered by Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.763/2011 decided on 02.08.2011 titled State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Banney Khan, and affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1766/2015 on 12.05.2015. The relevant paras of the Judgment of Coordinate Bench dated 20.12.2023 reads as under:- “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 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 looking into the factual matrix of [2025:RJ-JP:28572] (4 of 4) [CW-11264/2025] 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.” 4. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, appearing for and on behalf of the State, does not dispute that the issue raised by petitioners in the present writ petition is covered by the final judgment dated 20.12.2023 passed in Amar Singh (supra). 5. Learned counsel for both the parties admit that the judgment passed in case of Amar Singh (supra) has been implemented, as the State Government did not opt to assail the judgment passed in case of Amar Singh (supra) dated 20.12.2023. 6. In view of above, the instant writ petition is allowed in terms of judgment dated 20.12.2023 passed in SBCWP No.3873/2019 and petitioners are also entitled to get benefit of selection scale for the post of Sub-Inspector on completion of their 18 years of service on the post of Constable. 7. Stay applications and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /11