Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pukh Raj vs State Of Rajasthan (2023/Rjjd/018381) on 30 May, 2023
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/018381]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1739/2020
Pukh Raj S/o Shri Ganga Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Sinwaron Ki Dhani, Village And Post Sirmandi, Tehsil Osian,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Dy. Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur, Range
Udaipur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K.Bissa
Mr. Gaurav Ranka for
Ms. Vandana Bhansali
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
30/05/2023
1. The petitioner has approached the Court apprehending that
the respondents would require the petitioner to deposit the
expenses incurred on his training and refund the salary drawn by
him during his course of employment with the respondents.
2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable with
the respondents. While remaining posted as a Constable, he
appeared for recruitment to the post of Technician Grade III and
was appointed by order dated 27.01.2020.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 01:12:49 AM)
[2023/RJJD/018381] (2 of 5) [CW-1739/2020]
3. Petitioner filed the present petition with a prayer that a
relieving order be passed by the respondents. On 05.02.2020, this
Court passed the following order:
"---
---
---
Meanwhile, the respondent No.4 is directed to relieve the petitioner from the post of Constable to join on the post of Technician Grade-III without insisting for payment of refund of training expense/ salary. However, the said relieving of the petitioner shall remain subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition."
4. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that in pursuance of order dated 05.02.2020, the petitioner has been relieved by the respondents, hence, the order be made absolute.
5. He submitted that while making the order absolute the respondents also be restrained from recovering the training expenses and salary from the petitioner as has also been held by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gorkha Ram vs State And Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 227/2017).
6. Mr. Bissa, learned counsel for the respondents argued that in the case of Gorkha Ram's case (supra) while relying upon SBCWP No. 5255/2013 Arun Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. this Court by order dated 08.09.2020 directed the respondent - Department to reimburse the 'amount of both salary & training expenses' amounting to Rs. 1,24,564/- recovered from the petitioner, whereas, in Arun Choudhary's case (supra), the Court (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 01:12:49 AM) [2023/RJJD/018381] (3 of 5) [CW-1739/2020] had directed to release the salary alone, while maintaining respondent-Department's right to recover training expenses.
7. Mr. Bissa submitted that in an appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in Gorkha Ram's case (supra), the Division Bench by its order dated 26.08.2021 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 288/2021 has stayed the order dated 08.09.2020 and prayed that the respondents be permitted to recover the training expenses so also the salary drawn by the petitioner.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. In the case of Arun Choudhary's case (supra), this Court had ordered that the petitioner's salary be released if amount of training expense has been deposited by them. Relevant part of the judgment reads thus:
"Having regard to the facts aforesaid especially the latest judgment of the coordinate bench rendered at Principal Seat in Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8934/2013 decided on 28.1.2014, the present petitions deserve to be disposed of with direction that if the petitioners have already deposited the amount of training expenses as per the circular of the Director General of Police dated 30.9.2008, the respondent‐ Education Department shall release their salary. The fact about the deposit of the training expenses shall be verified by the concerned Superintendent of Police on the petitioners' approaching him along with copy of this order, who shall have the training expenses computed as per the aforesaid circular dated 30.9.2008.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 01:12:50 AM)
[2023/RJJD/018381] (4 of 5) [CW-1739/2020] On NOC being issued by him, the Education Department shall release the salary of the petitioners. It is further directed that if any amount in excess is found to have been deposited by the petitioners or recovered from them under the head of training expenses, the same is liable to be refunded to the petitioners within two months. If the salary for the earlier period has been with held by the respondents, it shall be released within two months too."
10. It may also be apt to refer a judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prafull Mehta (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., in SBCWP No. 3703/2012 wherein the Court while observing that stipend is honorarium in lieu of services rendered by the petitioner restrained the respondents from recovering the same when the petitioner therein had left the course before its completion. Relevant part of the judgment reads thus:
"22. It is settled law that every citizen is entitled to get fair wages, remuneration and salary etc. For the services rendered by him or her in lawful manner. If a person is deprived of his hard earned wages or salary by a condition of a contract, then such a condition of this nature would defeat the provisions of various laws. It also involves or implies injury to the property of another. Any person paid for the services rendered cannot be compelled to pay back the wages, remuneration or salary received in lieu if services rendered because the services rendered cannot be undone by leaving the services. ...........
...........(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 01:12:50 AM)
[2023/RJJD/018381] (5 of 5) [CW-1739/2020]
25. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and it is held that the condition of paying the stipend back, in a case a student leaves P.G. course before completion, is declared as void and is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are restrained from recovering the amount of stipend paid to petitioner during post graduation course."
11. In view of the above while making the interim order absolute, the respondents are restrained from recovering the salary drawn by the petitioner during his course of employment with the respondent-Department.
12. The respondents are directed to determine the amount of training expenses incurred upon the petitioner during such course within a period of four weeks from today and intimate the petitioner.
13. On receipt of the determination of the amount made by the respondents, the petitioner shall be allowed three months' time to deposit the same.
14. On deposition of the amount of training expenses by the petitioner, the respondent-Department shall issue a 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner.
15. The present petition stands disposed of.
16. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 483-AbhishekS/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 01:12:50 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)