Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan v. Goverdhan Meena S/O Ramkaran Meena

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2025SAW/537/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeal against writ relief on salary and training-expense recovery in a police service matter; delay condoned and appeal dismissed as squarely covered by a coordinate bench decision in Vinod Kumar Meena.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned and pending applications were disposed of; the appeal itself was dismissed following the coordinate bench ruling.

The State of Rajasthan Vs Goverdhan Meena S/O… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:30621-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 537/2025

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20698/2017

¶6

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

¶7

The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, Kota City.

¶9

The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Baytu, District Barmer.

¶10

----Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Goverdhan Meena S/o Ramkaran Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Subhashpur, Post Rachhinda, Tehsil Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Order

¶17

08/08/2025

¶18

For the reasons stated in the Application No.557/2025 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the same is allowed.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

[2025:RJ-JP:30621-DB]

¶22

[SAW-537/2025]

¶23

(2 of 3)

¶24

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

¶25

"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.].

¶26

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

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

(3 of 3)

¶29

[2025:RJ-JP:30621-DB]

¶30

[SAW-537/2025]

¶31

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).

¶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

¶37

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶38

GAURAV/AVINASH/294

The State of Rajasthan v. Goverdhan Meena S/O Ramkaran Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Rajasthan v. Goverdhan Meena S/O Ramkaran Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Neeraj Singh S/O Shri Fatee Singh

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

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