State of Rajasthan v. Suman Bai Meghwal Daughter of Shri Mohan Lal

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2025SAW/766/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal dismissed following Co-ordinate Bench precedent: salary entitlement upheld but training expenses recoverable; Section 5 Limitation Act condonation allowed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed as it is squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decision in State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.61/2024) which held that salary entitlement is allowed but training expenses are recoverable. ¶¶32-¶33

State of Rajasthan Vs Suman Bai Meghwal Daughter of Shri Mohan Lal — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:30250-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 766/2025

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16673/2023

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Tonk (Raj.)

¶10

----Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Suman Bai Meghwal Daughter Of Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bheeya, Tehsil Keshoraipatan, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma 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

06/08/2025

¶18

For the reasons stated in the Application No.708/2025 filed under Section 5 of the 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 Appeal Writ No.61/2024: State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs.

¶20

[2025:RJ-JP:30250-DB]

¶21

[SAW-766/2025]

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

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

¶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

(3 of 3)

¶28

[2025:RJ-JP:30250-DB]

¶29

[SAW-766/2025]

¶30

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).

¶31