Kishan Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8681 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:35822]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15453/2018

Farsa Ram Vishnoi S/o Shri Roopa Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Village Dayasagar, Post Khara, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Registar, Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

3. The District Collector, (Land Record) Jodhpur.

----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14396/2018 Kishan Kumar S/o Shri Khema Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Village Derwa, Post Khari Karamsota, Tehsil And District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

3. The District Collector (Land Recrods), Nagaur.

----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14682/2018 Balbeer S/o Shri Rata Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Nagwara, District Nagaur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer

3. The District Collector (Land Records), Nagaur

----Respondents

[2023:RJ-JD:35822] (2 of 3) [CW-15453/2018]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jay Ram Saran for Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi Mr. R.J. Punia For Respondent(s) : Mr Mrigraj Singh Rathore

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

18/10/2023

1. Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore, who usually appears for Revenue

Department is directed to appear on behalf of the State.

2. Mr. Jay Ram Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petitions has

already been set at rest by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide

its judgment dated 02.03.2022 passed in a bunch of writ petitions

led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2611/2019 : Rahul Patidar Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

3. Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the

respondent - State is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid

position.

4. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 02.03.2022

passed in the case of Rahul Patidar (supra) is reproduced

hereinunder:-

"In view of the above fact situation, wherein, the respondents themselves have decided not to recover/refund the amount of training expenses, in cases, where the petitioners have joined on higher pay grade, the petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of.

The respondents are directed to comply with the requirements of the circular dated

[2023:RJ-JD:35822] (3 of 3) [CW-15453/2018]

14.02.2019 i.e. not to recover the amount from the petitioners/refund the same from whom the same has been recovered.

The amount recovered, be refunded to the petitioners within a period of six weeks' from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioners with the concerned District Collector."

5. The present writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the

same terms as in the case of Rahul Patidar (supra).

6. The stay application(s) also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 435-437-akansha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)