Service Law | Rajasthan HC Mandates Reimbursement of Recovered Salary with 6% Interest for Resigning Police Personnel Under Arun Choudhary Precedent

The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed its stance on the reimbursement of salary recovered from police personnel who resigned to join other state services. In a significant order, the Court directed the State to refund the recovered amount with 6% interest, relying on the precedent set in Arun Choudhary v. State, which has held the field since 2014. This judgment underscores the principle of equitable treatment in service matters and the binding nature of judicial precedents absent an appeal by the State.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Renu Verma, a former police personnel, resigned from the Rajasthan Police Department to join another state service. Upon resignation, the Department recovered her salary, excluding training expenses. Aggrieved by this recovery, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking reimbursement of the recovered amount along with interest.

Key Facts

• The petitioner resigned from the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (RAC) to join another state service
• The Department recovered her salary, excluding training expenses, post-resignation
• The petitioner sought reimbursement of the recovered salary with interest
• The dispute hinged on the applicability of the judgment in Arun Choudhary v. State, which has been consistently followed by the High Court since 2014

Procedural History

• 11.08.2014: Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court delivered judgment in Arun Choudhary v. State (SBCWP No. 5255/2013), directing reimbursement of recovered salary for resigning police personnel
• Subsequent Orders: Multiple coordinate benches of the High Court passed orders following the Arun Choudhary judgment
• 2017: The State filed a Special Appeal (D.B. Special Appeal No. 288/2021) against one such order (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 227/2017), and the Division Bench stayed the operation of the order on 26.08.2021
• 2026: The present writ petition (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6115/2026) was filed by the petitioner seeking similar relief

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Reimbursement of the recovered salary amount
• Interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment
• Compliance within two months from the date of the order

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the State could recover salary from police personnel who resigned to join other state services and, if so, whether the precedent in Arun Choudhary v. State mandates reimbursement of such recovered amounts with interest, despite a stay on one of the subsequent orders by a Division Bench.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the judgment in Arun Choudhary v. State has attained finality as the State did not file an appeal against it
• The State has implemented multiple orders following the Arun Choudhary judgment, indicating its acceptance of the legal principle
• Applying two yardsticks - one for the petitioner and another for those whose orders were implemented - would be discriminatory and arbitrary
• The petitioner relied on the binding nature of judicial precedents under Article 141 of the Constitution of India

For the Respondent

• The State’s counsel contended that the Division Bench had stayed the operation of one of the orders following the Arun Choudhary judgment, creating a legal impediment to its implementation
• The State argued that the stay order should apply uniformly to all similar cases, including the present one
• The counsel submitted that the State was not bound to reimburse the recovered salary in light of the stay

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the factual and legal matrix of the case in light of the precedent set in Arun Choudhary v. State. Key observations included:

1. Finality of Precedent: The Court noted that the judgment in Arun Choudhary has held the field since 2014 and the State had not filed any appeal against it. Thus, the judgment had attained finality and was binding on the State.

2. Implementation of Orders: The Court observed that the State had implemented multiple orders passed by coordinate benches following the Arun Choudhary judgment. This indicated the State’s implicit acceptance of the legal principle established therein.

3. Equitable Treatment: The Court emphasized that the State cannot apply two yardsticks - one for those whose orders were implemented and another for the petitioner. Such differential treatment would violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

4. Effect of Stay Order: The Court distinguished the present case from the one in which the Division Bench had stayed the operation of an order. It held that the stay order was specific to that case and did not nullify the binding precedent of Arun Choudhary.

"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the judgment in case of Arun Choudhary (supra) is holding field since 11.08.2014 and further because the State has implemented the orders passed by this Court and Coordinate Benches following the judgment of Arun Choudhary (supra), I am inclined to follow the judgment passed in the case of Arun Choudhary (supra)."

The Verdict

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to:

• Forthwith reimburse the recovered salary amount (excluding training expenses) to the petitioner
• Pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment
• Ensure compliance within two months from the date of the order (13.07.2026)

The stay application was disposed of accordingly, and no order as to costs was passed.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Binding Precedents Must Be Followed Absent Appeal

• Courts are bound to follow precedents under Article 141 of the Constitution unless they are overruled or stayed by a higher court
• A stay on one order does not invalidate the binding nature of the precedent itself
• Practitioners should argue that non-implementation of a precedent amounts to arbitrariness and violates Article 14

Equitable Treatment in Service Matters

• The State cannot discriminate between similarly situated employees
• If orders following a precedent have been implemented for some, the same relief must be extended to others
• Recovery of salary from resigning employees must be justified by law and not merely administrative policy

Interest on Recovered Amounts

• Courts may award interest on recovered amounts to compensate for the delay in reimbursement
• The rate of interest (6% in this case) serves as a benchmark for similar claims
• Practitioners should plead for interest as a matter of right where recovery is found unlawful