Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sunil Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 August, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023:RJ-JD:26973]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12416/2020

Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Dhanna Ram Burdak, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Doogoli, District Sikar, At Present Posted As Constable At Ps Parbatsar, Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

3. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. Addl. Commissioner (Adm.), Commercial Taxes Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Ranka for Ms. Vandana Bhansali

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

24/08/2023

1. The petitioner has approached the Court apprehending that

the respondents would demand the petitioner to refund expenses

incurred on his training 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, she

appeared for recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant and was

appointed by order dated 24.06.2020.

[2023:RJ-JD:26973] (2 of 5) [CW-12416/2020]

3. Petitioner filed the present petition with a prayer that a

relieving order be passed by the respondents. On 21.11.2020 a

co-ordinate bench of this Court passed the following order:

"1. ---

2. ---

3. ---

4. Meanwhile, the respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, is directed to relieve the petitioner from the post of Constable to join on the post of Junior Assistant without insisting for payment of refund of training expense/ salary. However, the said relieving of the petitioner shall remain subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition."

4. Mr. Bijarnia, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset

submitted that in pursuance of order dated 21.11.2020 the

petitioner has been relieved by the respondents, hence, the order

be made absolute.

5. He submitted that while making the order absolute the

respondents be also restrained from recovering the training

expenses and salary from the petitioner 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).

6. Mr. Ranka, learned counsel for the respondents 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. 1,24,564/- recovered from the

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

[2023:RJ-JD:26973] (3 of 5) [CW-12416/2020]

had directed to release the salary alone, while maintaining

respondent-Department's right to recover training expenses.

7. Mr. Ranka, submitted that in an appeal against the Single

judge 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.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

ordered that the petitioners' salary be released if amount of

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

[2023:RJ-JD:26973] (4 of 5) [CW-12416/2020]

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."

10. 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

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.

[2023:RJ-JD:26973] (5 of 5) [CW-12416/2020]

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."

11. In view of the above while making the interim order

absolute, the respondents are restrained from recovering the

salary drawn (Rs. 3,64,580/-) by the petitioner during his course

of employment with the respondent-Department.

12. The respondents may, however, recover the amount of

training expenses incurred upon the petitioner during such course.

The petitioner shall be allowed three months' time to deposit the

same (Rs. 1,38,517/-).

13. On deposition of the amount of training expenses by the

petitioner, the respondent-Department shall issue a 'No Objection

Certificate' to the petitioner.