Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Batasi Devi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 May, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023/RJJD/014462]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7220/2021

Smt. Batasi Devi W/o Shri Babu Lal Gurjar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Ward No. 1, Doulaj, Tehsil Viratnagar, District Jaipur (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 Police Commissinarate Jaipur, Through Its Dy.

Commissioner (Headquarter), Jaipur.

4. The Director, Women And Child Development Department, 2, Jal Path, Gandhi Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. O.P. Sangwa
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa
                                     Ms. Vandana Bhansali
                                     Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa



                          JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                          Order

10/05/2023

1. The petitioner has approached the Court apprehending that

the respondents would demand the petitioner to refund expenses

incurred on her training and salary drawn by her during her 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

[2023/RJJD/014462] (2 of 5) [CW-7220/2021]

appeared for recruitment to the post of Female Supervisor and

was appointed by order dated 05.04.2021.

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

relieving order be passed by the respondents. On 25.05.2021, this

Court passed interim order in favour of the petitioner and the

respondent authority was directed to relieve the petitioner(s) from

the post in question without insisting for payment of refund of

training expenses/salary.

4. Mr. Sangwa learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset

submitted that in pursuance of order dated 25.05.2021 the

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

be made absolute.

5. He submitted that while making the order absolute the

respondents also be 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. 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. 1,24,564/- recovered from the

petitioner, whereas, in Arun Choudhary the Court had directed to

release the salary alone, while maintaining respondent-

Department's right to recover training expenses.

[2023/RJJD/014462] (3 of 5) [CW-7220/2021]

7. Mr. Bissa 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 petitioners. It is further directed that if any amount

[2023/RJJD/014462] (4 of 5) [CW-7220/2021]

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

[2023/RJJD/014462] (5 of 5) [CW-7220/2021]

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 her 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.