Dismissed¶31

The State of Rajasthan v. Mahaveer Singh S/O Shri Luna Ram Muwal

Rajasthan HC8 Oct 2025SAW/1055/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay allowed (Appln. No.865/2025); State appeal dismissed in similar terms following coordinate bench precedent State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar Meena (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.61/2024, dt. 05.04.2024), which applied State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.744/2016, order dt. 13.12.2016); subject matter of the relied-upon decision: salary payable for period in service, recovery/refund confined to training expenses; appellants: State of Rajasthan, DG Police, SP Kota; respondent: Mahaveer Singh; Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the appeal is condoned; application No.865/2025 is allowed for the reasons mentioned in the application. ¶16

The State of Rajasthan Vs Mahaveer Singh S/O Shri Luna Ram Muwal — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the issue raised in this appeal already stands finally adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena and Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.61/2024, decided on 05.04.2024), such that the present appeal must be dismissed in similar terms.

¶17

Court's answer

In view of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.61/2024, decided 05.04.2024), which itself applied the Division Bench order dated 13.12.2016 in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.744/2016), the present appeal stands dismissed in the similar terms.

¶30-31

Ratio / Principle

Delay in filing the appeal is condoned; application No.865/2025 is allowed for the reasons mentioned in the application.

¶16

Key takeaways

All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of along with the dismissal of the appeal.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur, Division Bench), D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1055/2025, decided 08/10/2025 — State of Rajasthan (Home Dept.), Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police, Kota (appellants) v. Mahaveer Singh (respondent). Application No.865/2025 for condonation of delay was allowed and the delay condoned. Learned AAAG stated, and the Court accepted, that the issue raised stood finally adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Meena and Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.61/2024, decided 05.04.2024). That Coordinate Bench decision, relying on the Division Bench order dated 13.12.2016 in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jagdish & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.744/2016), had held (within the quoted decision) that writ petitioners were entitled to salary for the period of service, that recovery was to be confined only to expenses incurred on training, and that training expenses were liable to be paid to the employer. In view of that judgment, the present appeal was dismissed in similar terms and all pending application(s) disposed of. The salary/training-expense propositions originate in the relied-upon Coordinate Bench decision quoted in this order and are not fresh findings of this Court.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:40955-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1055/2025

¶4

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶5

The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶6

The Superintendent Of Police, Kota, District Kota, (Raj).

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mahaveer Singh S/o Shri Luna Ram Muwal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ramjipura, Bhama Ki Dhani, Ramjipura, Sikar (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, AAAG

¶12

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

¶13

Order

¶14

08/10/2025

¶15

Heard on application (No.865/2025) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶16

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶17

Learned AAAG clearly states that the issue raised in this petition stands finally adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Vinod

¶18

Kumar Meena and Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ

¶19

No.61/2024), decided on 05.04.2024, wherein the Coordinate

¶20

Bench has held as under:

¶21

"1. 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)

¶22

(2 of 2)

¶23

[2025:RJ-JP:40955-DB]

¶24

[SAW-1055/2025]

¶25

No.744/2016 [State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish & Ors.].

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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).

¶29

5. Accordingly, the State appeals are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed."

¶30