Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) MATTER has come upon application (NO. 21594/dt. 06/05/2010) placing reliance upon judgment dt. 06/03/2009 in Mam Chand Yadav v. State CWP 7571/2002. At joint request, matter has been finally heard at this stage.
(2.) INSTANT petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that despite competent authority vide order dt.26/06/1984 granted Gallantry promotions to as many as 14 constables including petitioner whose name finds place at S. No. 6, and his name being recommended for gallantry promotion from Constable to Head Constable in compliance of Rule 25 of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974, but the same was not granted to him on the premise that Rules, 1974 have been repealed by Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 and since there was no post of Lance Head Constable under Rules, 1989; as such was not entitled to receive special pay. Counsel for petitioner submits that Director General of Police vide order dt. 27/06/1984 (Ann.1) granted special gallantry promotion to police personnel including petitioner herein whose name is shown at S. No. 6 & Mam Chand at S. No. 1 in the order (Ann.1) who had approached this Court by way of CWP 7571/2002 Mam Chand Yadav v. State which was decided vide judgment dt. 06/03/2009 while observing ad infra: 4) ...When the respondents have granted such promotion to the petitioner, suddenly, with promulgation of Rules of 1989, he could not be left in lurch. They could not revert him again on the post of Constable. There is no denial to the fact that under the self -sale Rules of 1974, other similarly situated persons, who were also promoted on the post of Head Constable or on other posts, on the recommendations of the Director General of Police, were not reverted to the lower post. Why then petitioner alone has been singled out from being accorded a different treatment. He cannot therefore be discriminated in an arbitrary manner. Respondents while framing the Rules of 1989 could not remain totally oblivious of the fact that there exist a category of employees by the nomenclature of Lans Head Constable. If what is contended by the respondents is accepted, that would tantamount to authorizing reversion of the petitioner and the likes of him without recourse to the procedure provided in law. It would be an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power being discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The assertion of the respondents that upon promulgation of Rules of 1989, petitioner cannot be retained in the post of Lans Head Constable, is appears to be a creation of the respondents themselves. 6) In the result, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that petitioner shall be entitled to be treated as Head Constable from the date of promulgation of the Rules of 1989 when the post of Lans Head Constable was abolished. For the intervening period, however petitioner shall only be entitled for the notional benefits. 5. Vide judgment dt. 06/03/2009 (supra) this Court finally directed that Mam Chand is entitled to be treated as Head Constable from the date of promulgation of Rajasthan Police Subordination Service Rules, 1989 while the post of Lance Head Constable was abolished; however, for the intervening period, he shall only be entitled for notional benefits. 6. Counsel for petitioner submits that case of petitioner is covered by judgment dt. 06/03/2009 (supra) and the relief granted to Mam Chand may also be granted in his favour as well. 7. Government Counsel is not able to distinguish judgment (supra). 8. Taking note of what has been observed in judgment dt. 06/03/2009 in Mam Chand v. State (supra) this fact appears to be correct that the order dt. 27/06/1984, referred to by the Court while deciding CWP -7571/2002 Mam Chand Yadav v. State (supra) makes it clear that gallantry promotions were granted on the recommendations of the Director General of Police in favour of police personnel which includes name of Mam Chand & Ram Kumar petitioner herein, as well. 9. In the light thereof, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as Head Constable from the date of promulgation of Rules, 1989 when post of Lance Head Constable was abolished and for intervening period, petitioner shall only be entitled for notional benefits. Compliance of order be made within two months. No costs.;