Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Neeraj Singh S/O Shri Fatee Singh

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2025SAW/448/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay condonation application was allowed and the State's special appeal against a Single Judge order on salary entitlement of a police recruit was dismissed as covered by a Co-ordinate Bench decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Vinod Kumar Meena, which confined relief to salary while permitting recovery of training expenses.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; special appeal dismissed in similar terms to Vinod Kumar Meena decision; pending applications disposed of.

State of Rajasthan Vs Neeraj Singh S/O Shri Fatee… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:30618-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 448/2025

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4506/2014

¶6

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

¶7

The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur, (Raj.)

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, Sawai Madhopur.

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Neeraj Singh S/o Shri Fatee Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Santruk, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur.

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Samee Khan for
	Mr.	Bhuwnesh Sharma,AAG
For Respondent(s)	:

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

¶15

Order

¶16

08/08/2025

¶17

For the reasons stated in the Application No.515/2025 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the same is allowed.

¶18

Learned counsel clearly states that the issue stands finally adjudicated by a Co-ordiante Bench of this Court in D.B. Special

¶19

Appeal Writ No.61/2024: State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs.

¶20

Vinod Kumar Meena and Anr. decided on 05.04.2024, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under:

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

[2025:RJ-JP:30618-DB]

¶23

[SAW-448/2025]

¶24

"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.].

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[2025:RJ-JP:30618-DB]

¶30

[SAW-448/2025]

¶31

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).

¶32

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

¶33

In view of the above judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors.

¶34

Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena (supra) , the present appeal stands dismissed in the similar terms.

¶35

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶36

(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶37

GAURAV/AVINASH/291

State of Rajasthan v. Neeraj Singh S/O Shri Fatee Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Neeraj Singh S/O Shri Fatee Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhinv Singh S/O Shri Banne Singh Vs Secretary

Mr. Arun S/O Om Prakash Vs Union of India

Sandeep Stocks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The State of Rajasthan Vs Goverdhan Meena S/O Ramkaran Meena

State of Rajasthan, Vs Prakash Chandra Meena S/O Shri Lalu Meena

Nbpl-Gcc (J.v.) Vs State of Rajasthan