Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devilal vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7465/2020
Devilal S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 25 Years, Athiyasan, Chenar,
District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur
3. Director, Soldiers Welfare Department Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. District Soldiers Welfare Officer, Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Suthar, AAG.
Mr. Raj Singh Bhati on behalf of
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, Govt.
Counsel.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
09/01/2025
1. The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondents to
relieve him from the post of Constable to join on the post of Junior
Assistant pursuant to his appointment letter dated 06.08.2020
(Annex.3).
2. Brief facts first. On 25.05.2018, the office of the DGP,
Rajasthan Police, Jaipur, issued an advertisement for the
recruitment of constables. After due process of selection, the
petitioner was initially appointed to the post of constable in
Rajasthan Police vide appointment order dated 28.09.2018, issued
(2of 4) [CW-7465/2020]
by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, and was initially posted
at Reserve Police Line, Nagaur.
2.1. It is relevant to mention that on 16.04.2018, the Rajasthan
Staff Selection Board also issued an advertisement for the
recruitment of Junior Assistants. The petitioner applied for the said
post and appeared in the written examination.
2.2. The authorities declared the result of the written
examination, and thereafter, the petitioner was called for
document verification. Ultimately, the Rajasthan Staff Selection
Board declared the result of the Junior Assistant Exam-2018, and
vide appointment order dated 06.08.2020, the petitioner was
appointed as Junior Assistant and posted at the District Soldiers
Welfare Office, Nagaur.
2.3. As the petitioner was working as a Constable in Rajasthan
Police, the petitioner submitted an application on 07.08.2020
before the respondent SP, Nagaur, requesting to be relieved from
the present post so that he could join the newly appointed post.
However, the respondent authorities did not accept the petitioner's
representation and did not relieve him.
2.4. The petitioner is already working as a Constable in Nagaur
and has submitted a representation before the respondent
authorities, requesting to be relieved from the present post so
that he can join the newly appointed post. However, the
respondent authorities are not relieving the petitioner and are
pressuring and compelling him to resign from the post and deposit
training expenses. Hence this petition.
(3of 4) [CW-7465/2020]
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have
gone through the case file.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the petitioner was relieved from the police
department vide order dated 23.10.2020.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the
petitioner was relieved, the respondents recovered training
expenses and his salary for the period he worked in the
department. Therefore, he is confining his prayer solely to the
request that the respondents refund the salary recovered from
him upon his resignation from the post of Constable.
6. First and foremost, my attention has been drawn to a
judgment rendered in Arun Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5255/2013) decided on
19.02.2016 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Relevant
of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"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
(4of 4) [CW-7465/2020]
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."
7. Apropos, on a Court query posed to learned counsel for the
petitioner that if the petitioner is willing to forego his claim qua
the amount of training expenses incurred by him, learned counsel
for the petitioner states that he has instructions from the
petitioner that he shall not stake his claim on the training
expenses if the rest of the salary is refunded to him.
8. In the premise, I see no reason as to why the benefit of
judgment / order in Arun Choudhary, ibid, be also not accorded
to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to refund the excess amount recovered from his
salary/allowances and/or refund rest of his salary after retaining
training expenses incurred for petitioner, within a period of eight
weeks from the date the petitioner approaches the respondents
with a web-print of the instant order.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
81-Mohan/-
Whether Fit for Reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
