Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Ganesh Lal Ninama ... on 12 August, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:35893-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 6/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Commandant, Mbc, Headquarter Banswara, Dist
Banswara (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
Dhanpal Barjod S/o Devchand Barjod, Aged About 28 Years,
Village Barjadiya, District Banswara (Raj).
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 711/2021
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Commandant, Mbc, Headquarter Banswara, Dist-
Banswara (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
Ganesh Lal Ninama S/o Shri Kacharaji, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident Of Village- 39, Adiwasi Mohalla, Metwala, District-
Banswara (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 715/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Chittorgarh, District
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
4. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh,
District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:54:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35893-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-6/2022]
7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer, District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
8. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
9. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
10. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Heera Lal Gayri S/o Shri Valji Gayri, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Village Limdi, Post Gothdr, Tehsil Aspur, District
Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajendra Kumar Bharti S/o Shri Chandimal Bharti, R/o
Village And Post Dantaramgarh, Sikar, District Sikar,
Rajasthan.
3. Jogaram S/o Shri Kesaram Bhambhu, R/o Village
Bhambhuon Ka Talla, Post Adel, Via Singhary, District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 25/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Commandant, Mbc, Headquarter,l Banswara, Dist-
Banswara (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
Bhur Chand Dodiyar S/o Shri Devaji Dodiyar, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Village- Ward No. 09, Nathapura Khurd,
Palaswani, District-Banswara (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 774/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department
Of Home Affairs Secretariat Jaipur Raj.
2. Director General Of Police, Headquarter Rajasthan Police
Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. Superintendent Of Police, Banswara Raj.
(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:54:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35893-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-6/2022]
----Appellants
Versus
Nirmala Kumari D/o Keshav Patidar W/o Naresh Chandra Patidar,
Aged About 33 Years, Vill. Patidar Mohalla Moti Bassi Dist.
Banswara Raj.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 989/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Director General Of Police, Headquarter Rajasthan Police
Jaipur Rajasthan
3. Superintendent Of Police, Pali Rajasthan
----Appellants
Versus
Bhuvanesh Kumar S/o Shri Govind Ram, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Village Siryari Tehsil Marwar Junction District Pali Raj
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni & Mr. Sukhdev
Sharma for Mr. B. L. Bhati, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O. P. Sangwa
Mr. Bheru Lal Jat.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Judgment/Order
12/08/2025
1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the issue
raised in the present appeals is squarely covered by the judgment
rendered by this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Vinod
Kumar Meena & Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal
WritNo.61/2024), decided along with other connected matters
on 05.04.2024 and, therefore, prayed that similar order may also
be passed in the case at hand.
[2025:RJ-JD:35893-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-6/2022]
2.1. In the case of Vinod Kumar Meena (supra), this Court passed
the following order:-
"At the outset learned counsel for the
respondents-writ petitioners would submit that in
their case, the writ petitions have been allowed to
the extent of payment of salary without including
the amount of training expenses and, therefore,
their case is squarely covered by order dated
13.12.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 744/2016
[State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish & Ors.].
2. Learned senior counsel for the State could not
point out any distinction on facts insofar as the
present batch of appeals is concerned. He would
submit that the order dated 13.12.2016, referred
to above, grants limited relief only to the extent of
entitlement of salary. Drawing attention of this
Court to the relevant paras of the aforesaid order,
he would submit that it has been clearly held that
recovery has to be confined only to the expenses
incurred on training. Meaning thereby, the training
expenses are required to be refunded.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the order dated 13.12.2016
passed in the case of Jagdish (supra), we find that
in the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench of this
Court, after thoroughly examining the provisions
of the applicable rules and the facts of the case,
came to the conclusion that as far as the salary
part is concerned, the petitioners are entitled to
salary for the period they were in service.
However, as far as the expenses incurred on
training is concerned, that is liable to be paid to
the employer.
4. In the present case, the respondents, vide
impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge, have been granted only salary part and
there is no order protecting them from recovery
against expenses incurred on training. That being
the legal and factual position, the issue raised in
this batch of appeals is squarely covered by order
dated 13.12.2016 passed in the case of
Jagdish(supra).
5. Accordingly, the State appeals are liable to
be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed."
[2025:RJ-JD:35893-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-6/2022]
3. In view of the such submission, the present appeals are
dismissed with similar directions as given in the case of Vinod
Kumar Meena (supra).
4. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
28-33-SunilS/Anil Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
