Jeti Devi vs State And Ors (2023/Rjjd/015822)
2023 Latest Caselaw 4740 Raj

[2023/RJJD/015822]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12623/2016

Jeti Devi D/o Shri Nimba Ram, Railway Colony, Utterlai, Barmer, Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Home Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur

3. The Superintending of Police, Udaipur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hapu Ram Vishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bissa

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 her training and refund the 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

appeared for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-II and was

appointed by order dated 22.12.2014.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in

petitioner's earlier writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.2301/2016, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

19.02.2016 directed the respondents to consider petitioner's case

[2023/RJJD/015822] (2 of 5) [CW-12623/2016]

in light of judgment rendered in Arun Choudhary Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5255/2013).

4. Mr. Vishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

while relieving the petitioner, the respondents have recovered the

amount of training expenses and salary from the petitioner,

whereafter she moved a representation before the respondents to

not recover the amount in light of the judgment rendered by a Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Arun Choudhary (supra)

however, petitioner's representation has been rejected by the

respondent - authority vide order dated 29.06.2016.

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. 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.

6. 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.

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/RJJD/015822] (3 of 5) [CW-12623/2016]

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

[2023/RJJD/015822] (4 of 5) [CW-12623/2016]

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."

10. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed.

The order dated dated 29.06.2016 (Annexure-10) passed by the

respondent No.3 is hereby quashed.

11. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of salary

out of the total sum of ₹1,49, 243/- within a period of eight weeks

[2023/RJJD/015822] (5 of 5) [CW-12623/2016]

from today. They will be free to retain the amount that was spent

for petitioner's training.

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

today, the same shall carry the interest @8% per annum.

13. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 394-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)