Disposed

Sareena Yadav D/O Sh. Sudesh Kumar Yadav W/O Sh. Mahesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Mar 2025CW/3914/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Constable who resigned during probation to join as a teacher sought refund of amounts deposited for salary/allowances and training expenses. Court disposed of the petition following precedent, directing refund of salary and allowances while retaining training expenses, compliance within three months.

What did the court decide?

Refund of salary and allowances deposited by petitioner; training expenses retained by respondents; compliance within three months.

Sareena Yadav D/O Sh. Sudesh Kumar Yadav… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:13164]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3914/2025

¶4

Sareena Yadav D/o Sh. Sudesh Kumar Yadav W/o Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village And Post Alamdika, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariate, Janpath, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur-302015

¶9

The Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter), Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Alwar, Malviya Nagar, Alwar.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rudraksh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG Ms. Sunita Meena, AGC Mr. Parth Sharma

¶13

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

24/03/2025

¶16

By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.1,03,646/- deposited by the petitioner against the letter dated 24.03.2015 issued by the respondents.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable vide order dated 21.02.2014. During the probation period, she participated in the process of selection for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-

[2025:RJ-JP:13164]

[CW-3914/2025]

(2 of 3)

III Level II and was selected and granted appointment vide order dated 19.03.2015 on the said post. Counsel submits that when the respondents did not relieve the petitioner, she tendered her resignation to join the department of Education. Counsel submits that the respondents asked the petitioner to deposit a sum to the tune of Rs.01,03,646/- (Salary/Allowance) and Rs.53,631/(Training Expenses) respectively. Counsel submits that the respondents cannot ask the petitioner to deposit the salary/allowance, however, they can ask her to deposit the training expenses incurred. Counsel submits that the issue involved has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Meena &Anr.; while deciding D.B. Spl. Appeal Writ No.61/2024 . Counsel submits that this writ petition be disposed of in the light of the directions issued in the case of Vinod Kumar Meena (supra).

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer but he is not in a position to controvert the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable vide order dated 21.02.2014 and thereafter, she was selected for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level II with the Department of Education on 19.03.2015, but during the intervening period, the petitioner had underwent the training wherein certain expenses were incurred, so the respondents are entitled to get the training expenses from

[2025:RJ-JP:13164]

[CW-3914/2025]

(3 of 3)

the petitioner but they cannot ask the petitioner to refund the salary received by her. As the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5255/2013 on 08.09.2020 and the same view has been followed subsequently again in the case of Vinod Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9304/2021 on 10.05.2023. The judgment passed in the case of Vinod Kumar Meena (supra), has been withheld by the Division Bench of this Court by way of filing D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.61/2024; State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena & Anr .

¶27

Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and looking to the fact that the issue involved in this writ petition is res integra, as decided in the case of Vinod Kumar Meena (supra) and the judgments referred hereinabove, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the direction to the respondents to retain the training expenses which are incurred in the training of the petitioner, and are directed to refund the amount of salary and allowances to the petitioner.

¶28

Needless to observe, the order passed by this Court shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶29

Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶30

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶31

GARIMA /19

Sareena Yadav D/O Sh. Sudesh Kumar Yadav W/O Sh. Mahesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sareena Yadav D/O Sh. Sudesh Kumar Yadav W/O Sh. Mahesh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Radheyshyam Chaila Vs the Department of Local Bodies

Shivkant S/O. Shri Laxman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Vidya Devi W/O Ram Charan Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Imran Khan S/O Sarajuddin Teli Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramlal Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Gainda Lal Son of Shri Rood Mal