Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

State Of Rajasthan vs Hira Lal Meena (2025:Rj-Jd:36169-Db)
2025 Latest Caselaw 6254 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6254 Raj
Judgement Date : 13 August, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs Hira Lal Meena (2025:Rj-Jd:36169-Db) on 13 August, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:36169-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 641/2025

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,      Udaipur,         District-   Udaipur.
         (Rajasthan).
4.       The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
         Bikaner, (Rajasthan).
5.       The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
         Education, Pratapgarh. (Rajasthan).
                                                                        ----Appellants
                                       Versus
Hira Lal Meena S/o Shri Lachchhi Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Shivpuri, Keshriyawas, Tehsil Dhariyawad, Dist
Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).
                                                                       ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Deepak Chandak for
                                   Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
For Respondent(s)            :



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Order

13/08/2025

1. The matter comes up on an application (inward no.01/2025)

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in

filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby

condoned.

[2025:RJ-JD:36169-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-641/2025]

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the issue raised

in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment

rendered by this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Vinod

Kumar Meena & Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.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.

3.1. 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.

[2025:RJ-JD:36169-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-641/2025]

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."

4. In view of the such submission, the present appeal is

dismissed with similar directions as given in the case of Vinod

Kumar Meena (supra).

5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 19-nirmala/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter