Dismissed¶31

The State of Rajasthan v. Ganesh Joshi S/O Mani Lal Joshi

Rajasthan HC7 Aug 2025SAW/748/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State of Rajasthan (Home Secretary, DGP, SP Udaipur) v. Ganesh Joshi and others; D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 748/2025, Rajasthan HC Jaipur, decided 07/08/2025; dismissed following Co-ordinate Bench ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar Meena (SAW 61/2024, dt. 05.04.2024), which applied State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish (SAW 744/2016, order dt. 13.12.2016): salary payable for period in service; training expenses refundable to employer; recovery confined to training expenses. Service-law keywords: salary, training expenses, recovery, RPSC, secondary education department.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the State's special appeal is dismissed in similar terms to State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar Meena, and pending applications stand disposed of. ¶31

The State of Rajasthan Vs Ganesh Joshi S/O Mani Lal Joshi — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:30381-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 748/2025

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

The Superintedent Of Police, Udaipur.

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ganesh Joshi S/o Mani Lal Joshi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Brahmpuri, Post Semari, Tehsil Semari, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Education Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶11

The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶12

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶13

	----Respondents
For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Adv. 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

07/08/2025

¶17

Learned counsel clearly states that the issue stands finally adjudicated by a Co-ordiante Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.61/2024: State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena and Anr. decided on 05.04.2024,

¶18

wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under:

¶19

"1.At the outset learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners would submit that in their

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[2025:RJ-JP:30381-DB]

¶22

[SAW-748/2025]

¶23

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.].

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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).

¶27

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

¶28