[2025:RJ-JP:49489-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1106/2025 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur, District Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Superintendent Of Police, Banswara, District Banswara (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus Ronak Patidar Son Of Shri Pavan Patidar, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bagidora, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara (Raj.), At Present Working As Police Constable In Rajasthan Police Department. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG with Mr. Samee Khan Ms. Sunita Meena For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 05/12/2025 Defect(s) pointed out by the Office is waived. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue involved in this appeal has already been considered and decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena & Anr. (D.B. Special Appl. Writ No.61/2024) along with other connected matters, wherein, on 05.04.2024 the following order was passed:- [2025:RJ-JP:49489-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1106/2025] “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.” [2025:RJ-JP:49489-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1106/2025] In that view of the matter, the present appeal stands dismissed in view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of State of Raj (supra). Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /102