Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Radheshyam Meena ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:37205-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 825/2025
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 Poliice, Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh
(Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
Radheshyam Meena S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Meena, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of V/p Sevna, Tehsil Dalot, District
Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Order
20/08/2025
1. The matter comes up on an application (inward no.1/2025)
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.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-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
[2025:RJ-JD:37205-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-825/2025]
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.
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:37205-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-825/2025]
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. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
34-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
