[2025:RJ-JP:30381-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 748/2025 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, De- partment Of Home, Govt. Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 3. The Superintedent Of Police, Udaipur. ----Appellants Versus 1. Ganesh Joshi S/o Mani Lal Joshi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Brahmpuri, Post Semari, Tehsil Semari, Dis- trict Udaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Education Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secre- tary, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Adv. for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 07/08/2025 1. Learned counsel clearly states that the issue stands fi- nally 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, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under: "1.At the outset learned counsel for the respon- dents-writ petitioners would submit that in their [2025:RJ-JP:30381-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-748/2025] 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, re- ferred 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 provi- sions 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 enti- tled to salary for the period they were in service. However, as far as the expenses incurred on train- ing 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." 2. 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. 3. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/324