State of Rajasthan Vs Ajit Kumar Son of Shri Banshi Lal

Ajit Kumar Son Of Shri Banshi Lal, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Jaroda Khurd, Post Jaroda Kalan, Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.) At Present Posted As Police Constable At Reserve Police Line Ajmer (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG assisted by Ms. Sunita Meena, Adv. & Ms. Kavita Sharma, Adv.

¶13

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

¶14

09/09/2025

¶15

Application No.748/2025 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶16

For the grounds mentioned in the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, delay is condoned.

¶17

Application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act is accordingly, allowed.

¶18

4.. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the issue raised in the present appeal stands finally adjudicated by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ

¶19

No.61/2024: State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar

¶20

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

¶21

(2 of 2)

¶22

[2025:RJ-JP:36177-DB]

¶23

[SAW-827/2025]

¶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

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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).

¶28

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

¶29