JUDGMENT : (Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your Lordships may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- (i) the order dated 10/12/2018 (Annex.10) may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) the respondents may kindly be directed to revise the order dated 26/04/2016 (Annex.3) qua petitioners and the action of the respondents, in granting the petitioners second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service of the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (A.S.I.) may be directed to be treated illegal and consequently, respondents may kindly be directed to grant and release benefits of second selection grade in the grade pay of the post of Sub Inspector (S.I.) from the date of completion of 18 years of service alongwith arrears of salary with interest @ 12% p.a.; (iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in favour of the petitioner may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice; and (iv) cost of litigation may kindly be awarded in favour of petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioners, are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Constable A.P (Driver) in the different districts through regular selection process in the M.T. Cadre, and are presently posted under the concerned Superintendent of Police. In the year 1999, the circular dated 11.01.1999 was issued, providing that the M.Ts. will get promotional post viz., Head Constable and thereafter Sub-Inspector. 2.1 Thereafter, the scheme for grant of Selection Grade on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service was changed, and in its place, another scheme, namely, Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) was brought into force. Thereafter, upon completion of 18 years of services, as per the petitioners, they became entitled for next promotional post in the cadre i.e Sub-Inspector, but such benefit was not extended to the petitioners, and the respondents have granted ACP to the petitioners in the pay scale of the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 26.04.2016. 2.2. Thereafter, upon completion of 18 years of services, as per the petitioners, they became entitled for next promotional post in the cadre i.e Sub-Inspector, but such benefit was not extended to the petitioners, and the respondents have granted ACP to the petitioners in the pay scale of the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 26.04.2016. 2.2. The petitioners filed a representation before the respondents and also submitted a letter with a request to consider their case, and thereafter the petitioners preferred writ petition S.B.C.W.P. No. 10857/2017 (Amar Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors) before this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court vide order 19.01.2018 disposed of the writ petition with a direction for consideration of their grievances by a reasoned and speaking order. 2.3. In pursuance of said order, the petitioners approached the respondents with a request to decide their case and grant them the grade of Sub-Inspector i.e. 9300-34800 G.P. 4200/-. The respondents vide order dated 10.12.2018 rejected the petitioners' representation/claim. Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajesh Punia appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are entitled for selection scale prescribed for the post of Sub-Inspector, but the respondents have wrongly granted them the ACP with the grade pay of Rs. 3600/- prescribed for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. 3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioners were appointed in the M.T Cadre and the avenues of promotion in the said cadre is Constable to Head Constable and then Sub-Inspector to Inspector, but despite the same, the respondents granted to the petitioners the pay scale of Assistant Sub-inspector, which is not justified in law. 3.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the controversy with regard to denial of the pay fixation applicable for the post of Sub-Inspector after completion of 18 years of service, is no longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench by this Hon'ble Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Banney Khan (S.A.W. 763/2011, decided on 02.08.2011), which upon being challenged, was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 3.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that similar benefits were already granted to the employees similarly situated to the petitioners, posted at District Jodhpur, Banswara, and Pali in different departments of the State. 3.4. v. Banney Khan (S.A.W. 763/2011, decided on 02.08.2011), which upon being challenged, was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 3.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that similar benefits were already granted to the employees similarly situated to the petitioners, posted at District Jodhpur, Banswara, and Pali in different departments of the State. 3.4. Learned Counsel further submitted that the benefits given to other similarly situated employees, on the ground of the same being granted erroneously, were ordered to be withdrawn by the respondents and order effecting recovery was also issued. However, upon a batch of petitions being preferred by the said persons, the same came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in D.B.C.W. PNo. 5920/2021- Santosh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters. the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 25.11.2021 disposed of the same with the following directions:- "(i) Let the Government reconsider the entire issue as is stated before us. Final decision preferably may be taken by 28th February, 2022. (ii) After the decision is taken by the Government, if any of the grievances of the petitioners survive, it would be open for them to file fresh petitions. (iii) Till fresh decision is taken, the State Government shall not make any further recovery on the basis of the notification dated 30th October, 2017. (iv) Recoveries already made from the pensioners would be refunded, subject to final decision of the Government, subject to further challenge." Therefore, as per learned Senior Counsel, the petitioners are entitled to be treated at par with other similarly situated employees, and accordingly, the benefits sought for by the petitioners, may be ordered to be granted to them. 3.5. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the State Government amended the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2017 vide notification dated 06.10.2023, modifying the Assured Career Progression to the effect of granting ACP benefits on completion of 9, 18, & 27 years regular services of the pay scale of next promotional post and benefits of next higher pay. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the present petition is not maintainable because petitioners are having alternative remedy of filling an appeal before the Tribunal under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976. 4.1. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the present petition is not maintainable because petitioners are having alternative remedy of filling an appeal before the Tribunal under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976. 4.1. It was further submitted that after framing of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised Pay-Scale) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2008') and after issuance of the order dated 12.09.2008 by the Finance Department, the earlier scheme of grant of selection pay-scale upon completion of 9, 18 & 27 years was replaced by the new scheme of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.), and therefore, as per the said scheme, and Rule 19 of the Rules of 2008, all the petitioners were granted the 2nd A.C.P. on completion of 18 years of regular satisfactory service and not in the grade pay of the post of Sub-Inspector. 4.2. It was also submitted that after the A.C.P Scheme under the Rules of 2008 coming into force from 01.01.2006, the employee shall be fixed in the next grade pay in place of the pay of the next promotional post and the same is in force till today. 4.3. It was further submitted that the benefits granted to the other persons in a similar matter were cancelled, wherein the Superintendent of Police, District, Pali granted the benefits to 24 and 11 constable drivers respectively, which were cancelled vide order dated 12.12.2018, fixing the pay scale of Rs. 9300- 34800+3600 grade pay and also ordered to recover the excess amount so paid. It was also submitted that similarly at other places, the orders granting similar benefits were cancelled by the respective authority, and therefore, the action of the respondents is justified in the eye of law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Constable A.P (Driver) in different districts in M.T. Cadre. Thereafter, the circular dated 11.01.1999 was issued, providing that the M.Ts. will get promotional post viz., Head Constable and thereafter Sub-Inspector. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Constable A.P (Driver) in different districts in M.T. Cadre. Thereafter, the circular dated 11.01.1999 was issued, providing that the M.Ts. will get promotional post viz., Head Constable and thereafter Sub-Inspector. Subsequently, the scheme for grant of Selection Grade on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service was changed, and in its place, another scheme, namely, Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) was brought into force. Thereafter, upon completion of 18 years of services, as per the petitioners, they became entitled for next promotional post in the cadre i.e Sub-Inspector, but such benefit was not extended to the petitioners, and the respondents have granted ACP to the petitioners in the pay scale of the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 26.04.2016. The petitioners preferred writ petition S.B.C.W.P. No. 10857/2017 (Amar Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors) before this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court vide order 19.01.2018 disposed of the writ petition with a direction for consideration of their grievances by a reasoned and speaking order. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioners approached the respondents with a request to decide their case and grant them the grade of Sub-Inspector i.e. 9300-34800 G.P. 4200/-. The respondents vide order dated 10.12.2018 rejected the petitioners' representation/claim. 7. This Court further observes that hierarchy as mentioned in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 reflects that the Police personnel engaged in whole-time driving work (MT Staff), Constable are having next promotional post of Head Constable and then Sub-Inspector/ Platoon Commander (MTO). The present petitioners were selected and appointed as Constable in MT cadre and therefore their next promotional post was the aforementioned post. 8. This Court also observes that the Finance Department of the Government of Rajasthan amended the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay), (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2023 vide notification dated 06.10.2023 wherein it was stated that the employees of Class IV/Ministerial/Subordinate Service, shall be having the pay level of the next promotional post on the same service/cadre. 9. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgments rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the cases of Shiv Prakash v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 9. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgments rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the cases of Shiv Prakash v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 934/2012, decided on 04.12.2014) and Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 843/2005, decided on 07.03.2017), as hereunder:- Shiv Prakash (Supra) "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Banney Khan (D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.763/2011, decided on 2.8.2011 and order of Single Bench dated 7.2.2013 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9440/2009 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Chandan Mal & Anr.), decided on 7.2.2013. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the same and agrees that the matter is squarely covered by the said judgment. The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.763/2011 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Banney Khan) vide its order and judgment dated 2.8.2011 upheld the order of the Single Bench, vide which, the order impugned therein dated 30.10.2003 resulting in withdrawal of the benefit already granted, was quashed. ....... It is stated that the judgment has been duly upheld and MT selection grade stands released to the similarly situated employer In view of the above, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in M.T. selection grade instead of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the General Section." Madho Singh (Supra) "Both the learned counsel for the parties are ad-ideam that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition stands concluded by the decision rendered by the a coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.934/2012 (Shiv Prakash v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 4.12.2014, which was decided in light of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.763/2011 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Banney Khan, decided on 02.08.2011 which has since been upheld right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They, therefore, pray that the instant writ petition may also be decided in light of the directions given in the said writ petition. v. Banney Khan, decided on 02.08.2011 which has since been upheld right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They, therefore, pray that the instant writ petition may also be decided in light of the directions given in the said writ petition. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the light of decision rendered in Shiv Prakash's case (supra), the operative portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:- "The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.763/2011 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Banney Khan) vide its order and judgment dated 2.8.2011 upheld the order of the Single Bench, vide which, the order impugned therein dated 30.10.2003 resulting in withdrawal of the benefit already granted, was quashed. Para 15 of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Banney Khan (supra) reads as under:- "15. It is not in dispute that the impugned order cancelling/recalling of the order granting benefit to the writ petitioner was passed without affording any opportunity to the writ petitioner. In other words, it is an admitted fact that the impugned order dt. 30.10.2003, which resulted in withdrawal of benefit already granted to the writ petitioner by its order dt. 27.12.2001 was passed without giving any show cause notice to the writ petitioner and without affording them any opportunity to show cause as to why such benefit which was originally granted be not withdrawn and that too on what grounds? In our opinion, this was a case where show cause notice was required to be given to the employee concern because it amounted to withdrawing of the benefit initially given to him. It is not in dispute that the benefit of grant of selection grade to the writ petitioner was a valuable benefit and hence the same could not have been taken away from the writ petitioner (respondent herein) without first giving him an opportunity and informing him the proposed grounds as to why and on what basis and for what valid and legal reasons, the benefit though granted earlier is now required to be withdrawn and that it can not continue any more. This was not a case of the State where, the benefit was granted to the writ petitioner due to any mistake or/and misrepresentation made at his instance whereas it was a clear case where the State of their own came out with passing of the orders referred supra and granted benefit to the writ petitioner. The least, therefore, which was expected of from the State was to give show cause notice to the writ petitioner and all such employees proposing their action before passing the impugned order adverse to the writ petitioner. In such event, the writ petitioner would have been in a position to defend the grant of selection grade to them on the grounds available to them. It was not done. The writ petitioner in their writ petition had taken this ground specifically but the same was not replied to much less effectively by the State." It is stated that the judgment has been duly upheld and MT selection grade stands released to the similarly situated employer. 3 In view of the above, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in M.T. selection grade instead of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the General Section. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms." 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. 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. 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 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.