Allowed

Sanju Leel v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2023CW/11885/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging recovery of Patwari training expenses was dismissed against the backdrop of circulars mandating refunds for transfers to higher pay grades. Petition for refund and stay application were disposed of; respondents directed to refund within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to recover training expenses and to refund amounts recovered within six weeks of serving this order; stay application disposed of.

Sanju Leel Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:28034]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11885/2018

¶4

Sanju Leel D/o Shri Ishwar Ram, Aged About 23 Years, VillagePost Saniya, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. 3. The District Collector (Land Records), Nagaur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

04/09/2023

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from recovering the training expenses/refund the training expenses of the post of Patwari recovered from her.

¶15

Submissions have been made that the petitioner was recruited on the post of Patwari, underwent training and had given a bond requiring to pay the training expenses amounting to Rs.95,200/-, in case, she would leave the service within three years from the date of joining

¶16

Submissions have been made that as the petitioner has been recruited to other services i.e. Teacher Grade III Level I/II or Senior Teacher, when she sought relieving from the respondents

[2023:RJ-JD:28034]

[CW-11885/2018]

(2 of 3)

for joining on the new post, she was required to make payment of the amount of bond, which is not justified.

¶21

In some matters this Court granted interim orders staying the recovery of the amount and in some matters, where the petitioners had paid the amount, they have sought for refund of the said amount from the respondents. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the Registrar, Revenue Board has issued communication dated 14.02.2019 inter-alia in relation to the amount of training expenses directing as under:-

¶22

2& ;g Hkh Li’V fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn dksbZ uofu;qDr iVokjh viuh jktdh; lsok ls R;kxi= bl dkj.k ls nsuk pkgrk gS fd mls jkT; ljdkj esa gh vU; lsok T;ksbZu djuh gS] tks iVokjh ls mPp is&xzsM dh lsok gS rks ml ij fopkj ugha dj bl i= ds fcUnq la[;k&1 ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tkdj dk;ZeqDr (Relieve) fd;k tk ldrk gSA vkSj ;fn iVokjh in ds leku is&xzsM dh lsok gS ;k mlls uhps is&xzsM dh lsok gS rks mlls mDr jkf”k olwy dh tkuh gSA”

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents further made submissions that as the posts of Teacher Grade III Level I/II and Senior Teacher are in higher pay grade, as per the said circular dated 14.02.2019, the amount where the same has not been recovered shall not be recovered and where the same been recovered, the same would be refunded back to the petitioner.

¶24

References has also been made to another communication dated 24.01.2022, wherein, a general circular has been issued directing the concerned District Collector to refund the amount.

¶25

In view of the above fact situation, wherein, the respondents themselves have decided not to recover/refund the amount of

[2023:RJ-JD:28034]

[CW-11885/2018]

(3 of 3)

training expenses, in cases, where the petitioner has joined on higher pay grade, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. 8. The respondents are directed to comply with the requirements of the circular dated 14.02.2019 i.e. not to recover the amount from the petitioner/refund the same if the same has been recovered.

¶30

The amount recovered, be refunded to the petitioner within a period of six weeks’ from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner with the concerned District Collector.

¶31

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶32

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶33

147-Mak/-

Sanju Leel v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju Leel v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamid Khan Vs Lrs of Shri Mustafa Khan

Firm Khubi Ram Shri Niwas and Ors. Vs Food Corporation of India

Lanco Solar Energy Private Ltd. Vs Tansingh Chouhan

Gomati Devi Vs the Commissioner

Lrs of Bhawani Singh Vs Karan Singh

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Sohani