Honble MADAN, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. (2). The grievance of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Constable after due selection in Rajasthan Armed Police in the year 1965 and rendered continuous service to the said department for a period of 27 years. It has further been contended by the petitioner that after successfully completing his armored course from 3 EME Center, Bhopal in the years 1968- 69, the petitioner wasallowed to work in the same grade as a Constable (Armorer) till 10th March, 1975, when the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable (Armorer) in the grade of Rs. 2,000/- to 3,200 w.e.f. the date of his promotion with revision of pay-scale of 1989 and the benefit of selection grade of the respective post was also assigned to the petitioner on successful completion of 27 years of service reckoned w.e.f. 26.6.92in pursuance of the order dt. 25.1.92 and in this manner the petitioner was drawing the consolidated salary of Rs. 4,700/- per month in the grade of Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,200/- i.e. the grade of third promotional post of Inspector. It has further been contended by the petitioner that as on 26.6.92, the petitioner had completed 27 years of qualifying service in the department and as per the Rajasthan Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short the Rules, 1989), the petitioner was entitled to all the consequential benefits as admissible to the similarly placed candidates in the police services of the State. (3). That on 3.5.94 vide (Annexure-6), the petitioner was given the benefit in the selection grade from Rs. 1,400/- to Rs. 2,600/- by reducing the same from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,200/- which was earlier granted to him vide the order dt. 19.12.92 & 23.10.92 vide Annexures 2 & 3 respectively. (4). During the course of hearing, Shri R.A. Katta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended at the bar that once the petitioner having been granted the benefit of selection grade on the third promotional post on successful comple-tion of 27 years of qualifying service, it would not be open to the Respondents to have withdrawn the said benefit to the detriment of the petitioner and the said order has jeopardized the service career of the petitioner. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Order dated 24.5.95 passed by this court in S.B.C.W. Pt. No. 619/95 wherein this court inan identical matter had observed that the work-charged employee of the State P.W.D., who has been confirmed after having successfully completed 27 years of service and to whom the benefit of revised scale has been given under the Rules, the same should, not be withdrawn from the said employee on the principle of estoppel under Section 115 of the Evidence Act which should be held fully applica-ble to the instant case. The said order was confirmed by the learned D.B. of this Court in Civil Special Appeal 46/96. (5). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the relevant documents as well as the pleadings of the parties on the record. The Respondents on being noticed by this Court while controverting the contention of the petitionerhave contended that in the instant case the petitioner was holding the post of Head Constable in the scale of Rs.950/- to Rs. 1680/- and after nine years of service he was entitled to the scale of ASI and after 18 years to the scale of S.I. (Rs. 1,400/- to Rs. 2,600/-) and which is the next higher grade under the Rules and the revision of pay scale granted to the Petitioner is perfectly in accordance with the Rules. (6). Prima facie I am of the opinion that once the benefit of revised grade had been given to the petitioner in accordance with Annexures-2 & 3 as referred to above, it was not open to the Respondents to withdraw the said benefit from the petitioner and the principle of estoppel is fully attracted to the facts of the instant case. I am further of the opinion that since the petitioner has successfully comple- ted 27 years of qualifying service in terms of Annexures-2 & 3 dated 19.12.92 and 23.10.92, the benefit of the same should not have been withdrawn from the petitioner vide the impugned order (Annexure-6) dated 3.5.94. (7). As a result of the above discussion the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.5.94 (Annexure-6) is quashed and set aside. (7). As a result of the above discussion the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.5.94 (Annexure-6) is quashed and set aside. The petitioner will be entitled to the same benefits which have already accrued in favour of the petitioner and have already extended to him vide Annexure-2 dated 19.12.92 and Annexure-3 dated 23.10.92. (8). The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of with the aboveobservations. Parties are left to bear their own costs.