Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 30 October, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:36772]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16933/2023
Ram Chandra S/o Shri Bhanwaru Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Village - Gwalu, Tehsil Mundwa, District - Nagaur,
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director General And Mahasamastha Of Home
Department, Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Bhilwara.
4. Commandant, Home-Guard Training Center, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. OP Sangwa.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
30/10/2023
1. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General
submits that the controversy involved in the writ petition is
covered by the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble
Court in Mastram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.10891/2023), decided on 17.08.2023.
The order dated 17.08.2023 reads as under :-
"Heard.
Copy of the petition has been served on Mr.
Manish Vyas, AAG.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
seeking directions to the respondents to refund the
recovered amount from the petitioner on account of
salary, allowance and training expenses alongwith
interest @ 9% p.a.
It is reported that the issue raised in the present
writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment in Arun
[2023:RJ-JD:36772] (2 of 3) [CW-16933/2023]
Choudhary & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.5255/2013, decided on
11.08.2014 at Jaipur Bench.
Learned AAG made submissions that though the
issue raised is squarely covered by judgment in the
case of Arun Choudhary (supra) but as another similar
nature order passed by this Court is pending
consideration before the Division Bench in D.B. Special
Appeal (Writ) No.288/2021, wherein, effect and
operation of the order has been stayed, therefore, the
hearing in the present matter be deferred.
I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the respondents and have perused
the material available on record.
Once it is not in dispute that the issue raised in
the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
order in the case of Arun Choudhary (supra), merely
because an appeal arising out of an order passed
following the order in the case of Arun Choudhary
(supra) is pending consideration before the Division
Bench, in which interim order has been granted, cannot
be a reason enough for deferring the hearing of the
present petition, indefinitely.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nirmala
Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.14864/2021, decided on 25.10.2021,
before which also identical submissions were made,
has declined similar prayer.
In view of the above fact situation, the writ
petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The
respondents are directed to forthwith reimburse the
amount of salary (excluding the training expenses) that
was recovered from the petitioner, who has resigned to
join other State services. The respondents would also
be required to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of
recovery till the date of actual payment.
[2023:RJ-JD:36772] (3 of 3) [CW-16933/2023]
Needful may done by the respondents within a
period of two months from the date of this order.
The order has been passed based on the
submissions made in the petition, the respondents
would be free to examine the veracity of the
submissions made in the petition and only in case, the
averments made therein are found to be correct, the
petitioner would be entitled to the relief."
2. In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith
reimburse the amount of salary (excluding the training expenses)
that was recovered from the petitioner, who has resigned to join
other State services. The respondents would also be required to
pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of recovery till the date of
actual payment.
3. Needful may done by the respondents within a period of two
months from the date of this order.
4. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner
would be entitled to the relief. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
101-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
