State appealed against writ petition outcome on salary and training-expense recovery. Citing a Co-ordinate Bench decision adjudicating the same issue, the Division Bench condoned filing delay and dismissed the appeal in similar terms.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:45331-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1057/2025
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9947/2022
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG with Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma & Ms. Sunita Meena, AGC
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
12/11/2025
[2025:RJ-JP:45331-DB]
[SAW-1057/2025]
(2 of 3)
"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) No.744/2016 [State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish & Ors.] .
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.
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
(3 of 3)
[2025:RJ-JP:45331-DB]
[SAW-1057/2025]
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.
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). 5.Accordingly, the State appeals are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed."
Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena” (supra), the present appeal stands dismissed in the similar terms.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ
MAHIMA /152
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal raising the issue of salary entitlement versus recovery of training expenses is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar Meena?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena and Anr.Followed¶4
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.61/2024, decided on 05.04.2024
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home
The Director General Of Police, Jaipur
Commissioner Of Police, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur
Lakhan Singh Jat
Registrar, Revenue Board Ajmer
District Collector Karauli (Revenue)
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Baljinder Singh Sandhu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
