1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.946/2006 (Arjun Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 13.8.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. B.N. Kalla, for the petitioner. Mr. K.L. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to grant gallantry promotion as provided to the similarly situated persons namely Sohan Singh and Pramod Kumar from the post of constables to the post of Head Constable. The case of the petitioner is that to arrest dangerous dacoit Bijiya, a task force was formed to arrest the said dacoit in the forest of Gopalupri, which is in State of Madhya Pradesh. As per the petitioner, he was one of the member of the task force, which is evident from the 'roznamcha' Annexure- a and he has performed duties for such dangerous work 2 to arrest a habitual dacoit but at the time of considering the case of promotion under Rule 28-A of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, the case of the petitioner was not considered and out of four persons only two persons were granted promotion knowingly well that all the persons of task force participated and performed their duties in the said work. The case of the petitioner is that respondent State cannot discriminate the case of the petitioner who was admittedly the member of the task force for the work assigned to task force, therefore, none consideration of the petitioner's candidature for promotion in accordance with Rule 28-A of the Rules is illegal because similarly situated persons who were members of the task force were granted benefit of gallantry promotion as provided under the Rules, which is evident from Annexure-3 dated 16.8.2002. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India and discriminated the case of the petitioner for granting the same benefit which is extended to the similarly situated persons. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to grant same benefits to the petitioner also because the petitioner was also one of the members of the said task force. 3 In reply to the writ petition, it is submitted by the respondents that in FIR No.217/2000 registered at Police Station Salamgarh for offence under Sections 302, 201, F.C. No. 1272 Sohan and FC No. 893 Pramod Kumar were granted benefit in order to arrest the absconding accused Bijiya and they remained thirsty and hungry for arresting the accused Bijiya, therefore, their case was recommended by the SHO PS Salamgarh District Chittorgarh in connection with that they were promoted and as per recommendations of Dy. Superintendent and S.H.O. other members of task force namely Kalyan Singh, Arjun Singh and Samunder Sing were recommended for the purpose of appropriate award. As per the respondents when this recommendation was made then while accepting recommendations Sohan Singh and Pramod Kumar were granted promotion in accordance with the Rules of 1989 but benefit of promotion was not given to the petitioner while saying that though he was member of the task force but in fact, two members namely Sohan and Pramod Kumar made special efforts to arrest dangerous dacoit, therefore, petitioner cannot claim benefit at par with Sohan Singh and Pramod Kumar, who were promoted in accordance with Rules of 1989. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. In my opinion when it is not disputed 4 that the petitioner was also one of the members of the task force who was assigned duties to arrest dangerous dacoit Bijiya then at the time of granting fruits of work, the respondents cannot discriminate the benefits granted to the employee under Rule 28-A of the Rules of 1989 for promotion. It is no where stated in the reply that anything adverse was committed by the petitioner while performing duties as member of task force and when all the members performed their duties as assigned to them then at the time of granting benefits under the Rules of 1989 for promotion, the respondents cannot discriminate the case of the petitioner while considering the recommendations made by S.H.O. or other authorities of police department. The respondents are under obligation to grant equal opportunities at least to the members of those who were inducted as the members of the task force. In this view of the matter, the denial of the petitioner for granting promotion in accordance with Rule 28-A of the Rules of 1989 is totally discriminatory. The petitioner is also entitled to be given same benefits of promotion being one of the members of the task force as given to Sohan Singh and Pramod Kumar vide Annexure-3 dated 16.8.2002. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Head Constable with effect 5 from the date when Sohan Singh and Pramod Kumar were granted benefit of promotion while treating the petitioner's case at par with Sohan Singh and Pramod Kumar in accordance with Rule 28-A of the Rules of 1989. No order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun