Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shrawan Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/015778]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14646/2019
Shrawan Kumar S/o Purnaram, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Jatiya,
R/o Vpo Lilsar, Teh. Chohtan, Dist. Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Police Headquarter, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Barmer (Raj).
4. The Director, Department Of Elementary Education,
Bikaner (Raj.).
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer (Raj.).
6. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dhanau,
Dist. Barmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Lal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Ranka for Ms. Vandana
Bhansali
Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit for
Mr. Shreyansh Mehta
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
17/05/2023
1. The petitioner has approached the Court apprehending that
the respondents would require the petitioner to deposit the
expenses incurred on his training and refund the 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
[2023/RJJD/015778] (2 of 5) [CW-14646/2019]
appeared for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I
and was appointed by order dated 18.07.2019.
3. Petitioner filed the present petition with a prayer that a
relieving order be passed by the respondents. On 01.10.2019 a
co-ordinate bench of this Court passed the following order:
"1. ---
2. ---
3. Meanwhile, effect and operation of the order
dated 23.09.2019 shall remain stayed, qua the
petitioner, to the extent of recovery of the amount
in question. However, the relieving shall be
considered strictly in accordance with law."
4. Mr. Shyam Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner at the
outset submitted that in pursuance of order dated 01.10.2019 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 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. Gaurav Ranka, associate to Ms. Vandana Bhansali,
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
[2023/RJJD/015778] (3 of 5) [CW-14646/2019]
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
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."
[2023/RJJD/015778] (4 of 5) [CW-14646/2019]
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.
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.
[2023/RJJD/015778] (5 of 5) [CW-14646/2019]
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.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
73-Arvind/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
