[2025:RJ-JP:47849-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1113/2025 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj. 2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur, District Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Dy. Commissioner (Head Quarter), Police Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus 1. Billu Daughter Of Shri Roshan Lal, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Jasota, Tehsil And District Dausa (Raj.) 2. District Collector (Revenue), Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG assisted by Mr. Vishnu Datt Sharma,AAAG Ms. Sunita Meena,AGC For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Judgment 26/11/2025 1. An application No.887/2025 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the grounds mentioned in the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, delay is condoned and the application is accordingly allowed. 3. The defect(s) pointed out by the Registry are waived. [2025:RJ-JP:47849-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1113/2025] 4. Learned counsel clearly states that the issue stands finally adjudicated by the 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, 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. 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." 5. In view of the above judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan and Ors. [2025:RJ-JP:47849-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1113/2025] Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena (supra), the present appeal stands dismissed mutatis mutandis. 6. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Simple Kumawat /148