Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chhitar Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:258) on 3 January, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:258]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14995/2023
Chhitar Choudhary S/o Shri Ratan Lal, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident Of V/p Deendwara, Tehsil - Kishangarh, Dist - Ajmer,
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh, District -
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, (Raj.).
5. The District Education Officer, (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Sangwa.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
03/01/2024
1. It is submitted by counsel for the parties that the issue as
raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by order in
Avinash Gajna vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.12565/2020 decided on 30.05.2023 and, therefore,
the present petition may also be decided in the light and with
similar directions as given in the case of Avinash Ganjna (supra).
2. In the case of Avinash Gajna (supra), a Coordinate Bench of
this Court came to the following conclusion and directed as under:
"9. In the case of Arun Choudhary (supra), the Court had
ordered that the petitioner's salary be released if amount of
(Downloaded on 03/01/2024 at 08:38:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:258] (2 of 3) [CW-14995/2023]
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.
10. It may also be apt to refer a judgment of co-ordinate
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Prafull Mehta (Dr.)
Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., in SB CWP 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
(Downloaded on 03/01/2024 at 08:38:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:258] (3 of 3) [CW-14995/2023]
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.
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."
3. In view of submissions made, the present writ petition is also
disposed of in the light and with similar directions as given in the
case of Avinash Gajna (supra).
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
337-AbhishekK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
