Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lalita Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:44135) on 15 December, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:44135]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9913/2022
Govind Kumar S/o Shr Ishawar Lal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Village Meda Jagir, Hadetar, District Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur, District Jaipur
(Raj.).
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Jalore, District Jalore
(Raj.).
4. District Collector Udaipur (Land Revenue), District
Udaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7952/2022
Lalita Meena D/o Mangee Lal Meena, Aged About 30 Years,
Village Mau Kheda, Salamgarh, District Pratapgarh. (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
(Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur, District Jaipur,
(Raj.).
3. The Superintendent Of Police, District Pratapgarh (Raj.).
4. The Director (Elementary Education), Bikaner (Raj.).
5. The Chief Exeuctive Officer, Zila Parishad Pratapgarh,
District Pratapgarh (Raj.).
6. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14867/2022
Amar Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Ram Singh Chouhan, Aged About
(Downloaded on 19/12/2023 at 09:34:41 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:44135] (2 of 4) [CW-9913/2022]
42 Years, R/o Village - Kharodiya, Bhaikhred, District Dungarpur,
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur, District Jaipur
(Raj.).
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Dungarpur, District
Dungarpur, (Raj.).
4. District Collector Dungarpur, (Land Revenue) District
Dungarpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Sangwa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG
Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa, AGC
Ms. Vandana Bhansali, AGC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
15/12/2023
1. It is submitted by counsel for the parties that the issue as
raised in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the
order passed in Avinash Gajna vs. The State of Rajasthan &
Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12565/2020 decided on
30.05.2023 and, therefore, the present petitions may also be
decided in the light and with similar directions as given in the case
of Avinash Gajna (supra).
2. In the case of Avinash Gajna (supra), a Coordinate Bench of
this Court came to the following conclusion and directed as under:
(Downloaded on 19/12/2023 at 09:34:41 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:44135] (3 of 4) [CW-9913/2022]
"9. In the case of Arun Choudhary (supra), the Court
had ordered that the petitioner's 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 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 a judgment of 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.
...........
...........
[2023:RJ-JD:44135] (4 of 4) [CW-9913/2022]
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."
11. In view of the above while making the interim
order absolute, the respondents are restrained from
recovering the salary drawn by the petitioner during his
course of employment with the respondent-Department.
12. The respondents are directed to determine the
amount of training expenses incurred upon the petitioner
during such course within a period of four weeks from
today and intimate the petitioner.
13. On receipt of the determination of the amount
made by the respondents, the petitioner shall be allowed
three months' time to deposit the same.
14. On deposition of the amount of training
expenses by the petitioner, the respondent-Department
shall issue a 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner.
15.The present petition stands disposed of.
16.The stay application also stands disposed of
accordingly."
3. In view of submissions made, the present writ petitions are
also disposed of in the light and with similar directions as given in
the case of Avinash Gajna (supra). All pending applications stand
disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
387-379 Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
