Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5852 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:25690]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5964/2018

Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Hans Raj, Presently Working As Veterinary Assistant Pashudhan Sahayak, Veterinary Hospital, Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Jaipur.

4. The Additional Director General, State Disaster Relief Force, State Reserve Police Force, Lal Kothi, Jaipur Headquaters.

5. The Commandant, State Disaster Relief Force, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kshama Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

14/08/2023

1. The petitioner has approached this Court for seeking

directions to the respondents to refund him the sum of

Rs.3,15,067/- recovered from him towards his training expenses

and salary drawn by him during his course of employment with

the respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable with

the respondents. While remaining posted as a Constable, he

appeared for recruitment to the post of Veterinary Assistant and

was appointed.

[2023:RJ-JD:25690] (2 of 5) [CW-5964/2018]

3. Ms. Kshama Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner at the

outset submitted that the petitioner has been relieved by the

respondents, hence, the order be made absolute.

4. She submitted that the respondents be directed to refund

(sum of Rs.3,15,067/-) the training expenses and salary to the

petitioner deposited by him as has also been held by a co-ordinate

bench of this Court in Gorkha Ram vs State And Ors (S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No. 227/2017).

5. Mr. Bissa learned counsel for the respondent argued that in

the case of Gorkha Ram (supra) while relying upon SBCWP No.

5255/2013 Arun Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. the

Court by order dated 08.09.2020 directed the respondent -

Department to reimburse the 'amount of both salary & training

expenses' amounting to Rs. 2,06,581/- recovered from the

petitioner, whereas, in Arun Choudhary' case (supra) the Court

had directed to release the salary alone, while maintaining

respondent-Department's right to recover training expenses.

6. Mr. Bissa submitted that in an appeal against the Single

Bench order in Gorkha Ram (supra), the Division Bench by its

order dated 26.08.2021 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.

288/2021 has stayed the order dated 08.09.2020 and prayed that

the respondents be permitted to recover the training expenses so

also the salary drawn by the petitioner.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. In the case of Arun Choudhary (supra) the Court had

ordered that the petitioners' salary be released if amount of

[2023:RJ-JD:25690] (3 of 5) [CW-5964/2018]

training expense has been deposited by them. Relevant part of the

judgment reads thus:

"Having regard to the facts aforesaid especially the latest judgment of the coordinate bench rendered at Principal Seat in Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8934/2013 decided on 28.1.2014, the present petitions deserve to be disposed of with direction that if the petitioners have already deposited the amount of training expenses as per the circular of the Director General of Police dated 30.9.2008, the respondent‐ Education Department shall release their salary. The fact about the deposit of the training expenses shall be verified by the concerned Superintendent of Police on the petitioners' approaching him along with copy of this order, who shall have the training expenses computed as per the aforesaid circular dated 30.9.2008.

On NOC being issued by him, the Education Department shall release the salary of the petitioners. It is further directed that if any amount in excess is found to have been deposited by the petitioners or recovered from them under the head of training expenses, the same is liable to be refunded to the petitioners within two months. If the salary for the earlier period has been with held by the respondents, it shall be released within two months too."

9. It may also be apt to refer to a co-ordinate bench judgment

of this Court in the case of Prafull Mehta (Dr.) Vs. State of

Rajasthan and Anr., in SBCWP No. 3703/2012 wherein the

Court while observing that stipend is honorarium in lieu of services

rendered by the petitioner restrained the respondents from

[2023:RJ-JD:25690] (4 of 5) [CW-5964/2018]

recovering the same when the petitioner therein had left the

course before its completion. Relevant part of the judgment reads

thus:

"22. It is settled law that every citizen is entitled to get fair wages, remuneration and salary etc. For the services rendered by him or her in lawful manner. If a person is deprived of his hard earned wages or salary by a condition of a contract, then such a condition of this nature would defeat the provisions of various laws. It also involves or implies injury to the property of another. Any person paid for the services rendered cannot be compelled to pay back the wages, remuneration or salary received in lieu if services rendered because the services rendered cannot be undone by leaving the services. ...........

...........

25. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and it is held that the condition of paying the stipend back, in a case a student leaves P.G. course before completion, is declared as void and is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are restrained from recovering the amount of stipend paid to petitioner during post graduation course."

10. In view of the above, the order dated 21.12.2016 is hereby

quashed and declared illegal to the extent of recovery of the

amount of salary drawn by the petitioner (Rs.2,06,581/-) during

his course of employment with the respondent-Department.

11. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of

Rs.2,06,581/- recovered from the petitioner within a period of

eight weeks from today. In case the amount is not refunded within

[2023:RJ-JD:25690] (5 of 5) [CW-5964/2018]

eight weeks, it will carry an interest @6% per annum from the

date of the order instant to the date of depositing.

12. The writ petition is partly allowed, as above.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 124-AbhishekS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)