[2025:RJ-JP:30621-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 537/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20698/2017 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Kota City. 4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Baytu, District Barmer. ----Appellants Versus Goverdhan Meena S/o Ramkaran Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Subhashpur, Post Rachhinda, Tehsil Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Samee Khan for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 08/08/2025 1. For the reasons stated in the Application No.557/2025 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the same is allowed. 2. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:30621-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-537/2025] Vinod Kumar Meena and Anr. decided on 05.04.2024, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under: "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.]. 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. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:30621-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-537/2025] 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). 5. Accordingly, the State appeals are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed." 3. In view of the above judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena (supra), the present appeal stands dismissed in the similar terms. 4. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV/AVINASH/294