[2026:RJ-JP:27821] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1972/2011 URN: CW / 3294U / 2011 Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Ramnath Gurjar aged about 30 years R/o Village Bamrora Post Chaukari Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1 2 The State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary to the Government, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. The Secretary, Rajasthan Sainik Board, Chamber No. 7225, 2nd Manzil, Khadhya Bhawan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3 The Director, Sainik Department, Chamber No. 7225, 2nd Manzil, Khadhya Bhawan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 4 Deputy Secretary Revenue, (Group-6), Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pulkit Pareek Mr. Prem Chand Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy. GC Mr. Raghav Mishra and Mr. Umesh Choudhary for Mr. V.D. Gathala HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 20/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "(i) the respondents be kindly directed to grant the Cash Rewards and Land Grants to the petitioner in view of the provisions of the Rajasthan [2026:RJ-JP:27821] (2 of 7) [CW-1972/2011] Gallantry Awards (Cash Rewards and Land Grants) (Amendment) Rules, 2006 issued vide Notification dated 17/07/2006 (Annx.3) i.e. Rs.3.00 lakhs in cash and 25 Bighas of irrigated Land in Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna Phase II or Rs.2.00 Lakhs in cash in lieu of land; and (ii) Any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be kindly also granted to the petitioner." 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was serving as a 'Rifleman' in the Assam Rifles i.e. a Para-Military Force and while serving as such, participated in “Operation Lighting”. Because of his bravery in the said operation, he was awarded the 'Police Medal for gallantry' by President of India vide notification dated 03.07.2007. 3. As per Notification dated 17.07.2006 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, the holders of President’s Police Medal for gallantry were entitled for an amount of Rs. 3 Lac in cash and 25 bighas of irrigated land in Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana Phase II or Rs. 2 Lac in cash in lieu of the land. In terms of the said notification, the petitioner being entitled for the cash and land, he served a detailed representation on all the concerned Authorities for release of the said grants. 4. The case of the petitioner for grant was even recommended by the Group Commander vide communication dated 15.06.2010 (Annexure-6). 5. However, vide impugned letter dated 26.07.2010 (Annexure- 8), the representation of the petitioner stood rejected on the count that the petitioner was working with a Para-Military Force [2026:RJ-JP:27821] (3 of 7) [CW-1972/2011] and it is only in the year 2009 that the members of the Central Para-Military Forces were included in the definition of ‘members of defence services' as provided under The Rajasthan Gallantry Awards (Cash Rewards & Land Grants) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1966’). The petitioner having been awarded the Police Medal in the year 2007 was therefore not entitled for the said cash reward and land grant. 6. Counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the Co-ordinate Bench judgement of this Court in Srikishan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2008 (1) WLN 287; and Kamla Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; AIR 2015 Raj 136 and further, the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgement in Commando Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana; 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 13243, submitted that though the petitioner was not a member of the Defence Services in the year 2007, but then, he definitely participated in a defence action and was awarded the Police Medal for gallantry. The petitioner being a person awarded with the Police Medal, is definitely entitled for the reward in terms of the Rules of 1966. Counsel submitted that awardees of the President’s Police Medal who are otherwise similarly situated, have to be placed at par and be treated alike. The petitioner cannot be denied the benefits of the Rules of 1966 only on the pretext that amendment was brought in the year 2009 whereas the petitioner had been awarded the medal in the year 2007. 7. Per contra Counsel for the respondents at the very inception submitted that the judgement in Kamla Kanwar (supra) as relied upon by counsel for the petitioner stood set aside by Hon’ble the [2026:RJ-JP:27821] (4 of 7) [CW-1972/2011] Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 797/2015 vide order dated 06.10.2016. The ratio laid down by learned Single Judge therefore, would not govern the present matter. 8. Heard the counsels. Perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that prior to notification dated 19.11.2009, i.e., the date when amended Rules were brought into effect, Central Para-Military Forces were not a part of Rules of 1966. It is only vide notification dated 19.11.2009 that Clause (i) was inserted in Rule 2 of the Rules of 1966 whereby the Central Para-Military Forces were included in the said Rules. Further, vide the said notification proviso was inserted to Rule 3 of the said Rules and the members of Central Para-Military Forces were held entitled to be governed by the said Rules w.e.f. the publication of the amended Rules. Meaning thereby, prior to notification dated 19.11.2009, members of Central Para-Military Forces were not governed by the Rules of 1966. But then, notification dated 03.07.2007 (Annexure-1) whereby the Police Medal for gallantry had been awarded to the present petitioner itself contained a specific stipulation as follows: "These awards are made for gallantry under Rule 4(i) of the Rules governing the award of Police Medal and consequently carries with it the special allowance admissible under Rule 5, with effect from 13th August, 2006." 10. Meaning thereby, the Police Medal as awarded to the petitioner was specifically with a stipulation that the said award shall be governed by Rule 4 (i) of the Rules and further, shall carry with it the allowances admissible under Rule 5. [2026:RJ-JP:27821] (5 of 7) [CW-1972/2011] 11. So far as President's Police Medal for gallantry being governed by Rules of 1966 is concerned, the same is not disputed. Rule 2(ia) of Rules of 1966 specifically incorporates the President's Police Medal for gallantry to be a 'Gallantry Award'. Further, proviso to Rule 3 as inserted vide notification dated 19.11.2009, specifically provides that the provisions of the said Rules shall be applicable to those gallantry holders who received the award after the publication of the amended Rules of 2009. Admittedly, the petitioner was awarded the gallantry award in the month of July, 2007. 12. While dealing with a similar issue and a similar proviso, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Lt. General Mandhata Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14440/2019 (decided on 18.07.2023) observed and held as under:- "17. Though under the Rajasthan Gallantry Awards (Cash Rewards and Land Grants) (Amendment) Rules, 2006 (for short the ‘Said Amendment Rules of 2006’) promulgated vide Notification dated 17.07.2006, came into force from the date of publication in the Official Gazette, does not include the GSM under the gallantry awards but proviso to the said amendment rules of 2006 provides that the persons who received the gallantry awards prior to the publication of the said amendment rules of 2006, shall be entitled to the cash rewards and land grants as per the provisions of rule 4 applicable prior to the commencement of the said amendment rules of 2006. The proviso part of the said amendment rules of 2006 is quoted as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:27821] (6 of 7) [CW-1972/2011] “Provided further that the person, who received the gallantry awards prior to the publication of the Rajasthan Gallantry Awards (Cash Rewards and Land Grant) (Amendment) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Said Amendment Rules’) shall be entitled to the Cash Rewards and Land Grants as per the provisions of rule 4 applicable prior to the commencement of the ‘Said Amendment Rules.” Similarly, the Rajasthan Gallantry Awards (Cash Rewards and Land Grants) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (for short the said ‘Said Amendment Rules of 2012’) which were promulgated vide Notification dated 09.07.2012 and put into force w.e.f. 01.10.2011 also not includes the YSM in the gallantry awards but proviso to the said amendment rules of 2012 provides that the person, who received the gallantry awards prior to Ist October 2011, shall be entitled to the cash rewards and land grants as per the provisions of rule 4 applicable prior to the above date. The proviso part of the said amendment rules of 2012 is quoted as under:- “Provided further that the person, who received the gallantry awards prior to Ist October 2011, shall be entitled to the cash rewards and land grants as per the provisions of rule 4 applicable to the above date.” The bare reading of the proviso to the said amendment rules reveals that the persons who received the gallantry awards prior to the commencement of these rules, are entitled for the cash rewards and land grants as per provisions of Rule 4 applicable at the relevant time. 18. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned letters dated 25.1.2018 (Annex.11) and 27.01.2019 (Annex.12) are set aside and the [2026:RJ-JP:27821] (7 of 7) [CW-1972/2011] respondents are directed to allow the benefit of cash rewards of Rs.4,000/- and allotment of 25 bighas of irrigated land or 50 bighas of unirrigated land to the petitioner." 13. Although an appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment in Lt. General Mandhata Singh (supra) but then, admittedly, no interim order has been passed by the Division Bench in the said appeal. In view of the above facts, this Court is of the clear opinion that when notification dated 03.07.2007 vide which the petitioner was awarded the gallantry award itself contained a specific stipulation that the said award would be governed by Rule 4(i) of the Rules and further shall carry with it the special allowance admissible under Rule 5, the applicability of the said Rules to the petitioner could not have been denied on the pretext that he being a member of Central Para-Military Force, was not governed by said Rules. The writ petition hence, stands allowed. 15. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner for release of cash reward as well as the land grant in terms of Rules of 1966 within a period of six weeks of the receipt of the copy of the present order. (REKHA BORANA),J 112/ANMOL/RAVI KHANDELWAL