Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rakesh Gurjar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26113) on 27 May, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:26113]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16565/2024

Uma Ram S/o Shri Likhma Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident
Of V/p Khariyader Poshal, Tehsil Chohtan, Dist. Barmer (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.       The Commandant, 2Nd Battalion Rajasthan                          Armed
         Constabulary (Rac), Headquarter, Kota (Raj.).
                                                                 ----Respondents
                              Connected With
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16578/2024
Sunil Choudhary S/o Shri Ramkishor Jat, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of V/p Tahtara, Tehsil Bassi, Dist. - Jaipur (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.       The Commandant, 2nd Battalion Rajasthan                          Armed
         Constabulary (Rac), Headquarter, Kota, (Raj.).
                                                                 ----Respondents
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16592/2024
Rakesh Gurjar S/o Shri Durga Lal Gurjar, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of V/p Kheradiya, Tehsil Bijoliya, Dist - Bhilwara, (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.       The Commandant, 2Nd Battalion Rajasthan                          Armed
         Constabulary (Rac), Headquarter, Kota, (Raj.).
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Kailash Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Samarjeet Singh Bhati for
                                Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, AGC



                     (Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:41:53 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:26113]                      (2 of 4)                         [CW-16565/2024]


              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

27/05/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

controversy in question rests covered by the judgment passed by

a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chena Ram Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.905/2017

(decided on 05.11.2024).

2. Learned counsel for the respondents admits that the

controversy in question is covered by the judgment passed in

Chena Ram's case.

3. In the case of Chena Ram, the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court passed the following order:-

"1. Petitioner, currently a school teacher but an ex- constable, is before this Court assailing an order dated 29.06.2016 (Annex.8)passed by the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, Rajasthan, vide which, his application for refund of his salary, which was recovered from him on his resignation from the post of Constable.

2. Brief facts first. The petitioner was appointed as Constable(Belt No. 693) in the Udaipur Range in 2011. While undergoing police training, the petitioner appeared for an examination conducted by the Zila Parishad, Barmer, in 2012, for the post of Teacher (Grade III), and was selected for the position in the English subject at Government Uppar Primary School, Dhandhalawas Nagar, Barmer.

2.1 Following the selection, the petitioner resigned from the Constable post and requested a "No Dues" certificate from the Police Department.

2.2 The Police Department issued a notice asking the petitioner to repay the expenses incurred during training, as well as salary and allowances paid, due to non- completion of probation. The petitioner deposited Rs.1,22,208/- on 17.09.2012. On the same day, the 'No Dues certificate' (NOC) Annex.3 was issued, and the resignation was accepted.

[2025:RJ-JD:26113] (3 of 4) [CW-16565/2024]

2.3 After resigning, the petitioner joined as Teacher (Grade III) at the Government Upper Primary School in Dhandhalawas Nagar, Barmer.

2.4 Aggrieved by the recovery of training expenses and salary/allowances, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1725/2016..The court, by order dated 08.02.2016, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case in light of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5255/2013 (Arun Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State & Ors.), which had granted relief in similar cases, ordering refunds of salary/allowance recoveries, except training expenses.

2.5 In compliance with the 2016's order, the respondent department returned the excess amount recovered, excluding the training expenses, by order dated 19.06.2015.

2.6 Pursuant to this, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent for the return of the excess amount recovered for salary and allowances.

2.7 However, the respondent rejected the representation vide order impugned dated 29.06.2016, denying the refund of the excess amount. Hence this petition.

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 outset, 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 herein below:

"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.

[2025:RJ-JD:26113] (4 of 4) [CW-16565/2024]

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."

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 29.06.2016 (Annex.8) is set aside. 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 by petitioner, within a period of eight weeks.

8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

4. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petitions

are also allowed in the same terms as in Chena Ram's case

(supra).

5. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J

68-70/praveen/-