[2025:RJ-JP:29385] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11660/2025 Mansha Choudhary D/o Shri Dal Chand, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Keeratpura, Post Suras, Tehsil- And Distt.-Bhilwara. (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Superintendent Of Police, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara. (Raj.) 4. The Director and Special Secretary, Local Self Department Rajasthan, District Jaipur, (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Sepat for Ms. Komal Kumari Giri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 01/08/2025 1. On behalf of respondents, learned Additional Advocate General has put in appearance. 2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. 3. That the issue is in respect of not issuing relieve order to petitioner from the post of Constable in order to join on the post of Executive Officer, Legal Department. 4. The grievance of petitioner is that in order to issue the relieve order, respondents are demanding to redeposit the salary already paid to the petitioner as also the training expenses [2025:RJ-JP:29385] (2 of 3) [CW-11660/2025] incurred by the petitioner for discharging the duties on the post of Constable. 5. Counsel for petitioner states that as far as payment of training expenses is concerned, petitioner is agreeable to deposit the same but as far as demand to redeposit the salary is concerned, the issue is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena & Ors.: D.B. SAW No. 61/2024 decided vide order dated 05.04.2024. 6. In case of Vinod Kumar Meena (supra), the Division Bench has placed reliance on the erstwhile judgment dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Division Bench in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish & Ors.: D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 744/2016, and observed as under:- “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.” 7. Learned Additional Advocate General is not in a position to refute the above proposition of law as expounded by the Division Bench in case of Jagdish (supra) followed in case of Vinod Kumar Meena (supra). 8. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent to relieve the petitioner forthwith for re- [2025:RJ-JP:29385] (3 of 3) [CW-11660/2025] deposition of training expenses without demanding to redeposit the salary already paid to petitioner to discharge the duties from the post of Constable within a period of three days. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /249