Dismissed¶34

The State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Kumar Katara Son of Shri Shankar Lal Ji Katara

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2025SAW/955/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; Application No. 817/2025; D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 955/2025; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; police constable respondents Surendra Kumar Katara and Rajesh Kumar Bhagora; salary entitlement for period in service; recovery/refund of training expenses; State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar Meena, D.B. SAW No. 61/2024 (05.04.2024); State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish, D.B. SAW No. 744/2016 (order dated 13.12.2016); State appeal dismissed following Co-ordinate Bench; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants; the appeal is dismissed in similar terms as the Co-ordinate Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar Meena, and all pending applications stand disposed of. ¶34

The State of Rajasthan Vs Surendra Kumar Katara Son of Shri Shankar Lal Ji Katara — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellants; the appeal is dismissed in similar terms as the Co-ordinate Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar Meena, and all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the present State appeal is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decision in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Meena and Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.61/2024) and is liable to be dismissed in similar terms.

¶34

Court's answer

In view of the Co-ordinate Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Meena (supra), the present appeal stands dismissed in the similar terms, and all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur, Division Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Acting CJ and Baljinder Singh Sandhu, J) dismissed the State's D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 955/2025 against two serving police constables. Delay in filing was condoned and Application No. 817/2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed. Learned counsel stated that the issue stood finally adjudicated by a Co-ordinate Bench in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Meena and Anr., D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 61/2024, decided 05.04.2024, where batch State appeals were dismissed following the Division Bench order dated 13.12.2016 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 744/2016 (State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish), holding that constables are entitled to salary for the period in service while expenses incurred on training are liable to be paid/refunded to the employer, recovery being confined to training expenses. Accordingly, the present appeal was dismissed in similar terms and all pending applications were disposed of. (The salary/training-expense conclusions recited above are those of the Co-ordinate Bench and the quoted Jagdish order, not independent findings of this Bench.)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:44647-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 955/2025

¶4

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

¶5

The Director General Of Police, Jaipur District Jaipur, Raj.

¶6

Superintendent Of Police, Banswara (Raj.)

¶7

Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Surendra Kumar Katara Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Ji Katara, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Chikariya Chandravat, Badana, Bansrawa (Raj.) At Present Working As Police Constable In Rajasthan Police.

¶11

Rajesh Kumar Bhagora Son Of Shri Nanagram Bhagora, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Kota Mangri, Post Dungariya, Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara (Raj.) At Present Working As Police Constable In Rajasthan Police..

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, AAAG. with Ms. Sunita Meena, Adv. For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

¶15

Order

¶16

07/11/2025

¶17

Application No.817/2025 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶18

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

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[2025:RJ-JP:44647-DB]

¶21

[SAW-955/2025]

¶22

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

¶23

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, wherein,

¶24

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

¶26

Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.744/2016 [State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish & Ors.].

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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).

¶30

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

¶31

(3 of 3)

¶32

[SAW-955/2025]

¶33

[2025:RJ-JP:44647-DB]

¶34

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

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J

¶37

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ

¶38

HEENA/MAHIMA/159

The State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Kumar Katara Son of Shri Shankar Lal Ji Katara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Kumar Katara Son of Shri Shankar Lal Ji Katara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs the Deputy Conservator of Forest South

Smt. Raj W/O Shri Mahendra Lal (Retired Ips) Vs Shakti Singh

Army No. 1266597N Ex. Hav Jiwan Ram Choudary S/O Sh. Bhoora Ram Vs Union of India (through Its Secretary)

M/S Shree Shubham Logistics Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandhya Singhal W/O Sri Nand Kishore Singhal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Saini S/O Shri Sitaram Saini Vs State of Rajasthan