ORDER : 1. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, all these matters are taken up together for final disposal and the same are being decided by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14531/2023 has been taken into consideration. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “(I) The record of the case may kindly be called for; (II) The respondent No.03 may kindly be directed to relieve the petitioner from the post of Constable to join on the post of PTI without insisting him for payment of refund of training expenses/salary. (III) The by order or direction this Hon’ble Court may awarded all the service benefits to the petitioner. (IV) The petitioner may be granted for all consequential benefits; (V) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the facts and circumstances of the case warrants be issued and; (VI) Costs of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner.” 4. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to relieve the petitioner from the post of Constable in order to join the post of Physical Training Instructor without insisting him to refund the payment of training expenses/salary. 5. At the outset, it has been brought into the notice of this Court that the controversy involved in this writ petition has already been set at rest by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Karanjeet Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & Others while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12930/2020 . Learned counsel for the respondents submits that while deciding the matter of Karanjeet Singh (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has directed the respondents to determine the amount of expenses incurred on the training of the petitioner and recover the same from the petitioner but so far as the withdrawal of the salary is concerned during the course of employment by the petitioner, the respondents have been restrained to recover the same from him. 6. 6. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid order was assailed by the State by way of filing an appeal before the Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan & Others Versus Vinod Kumar Meena & Another, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.61/2024 , whereby the Division Bench has upheld the view taken by the Single Bench. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, instant writ petitions be disposed of in the light of similar directions issued in the case of Karanjeet Singh (supra). 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 8. Perusal of the record indicates that the issue involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Choudhary & Others Versus State & Others while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5255/2013 with the following observations and directions:- “Having regard to the facts aforesaid especially the latest judgment of the coordinate bench rendered at Principal Seat in Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8934/2013 decided on 28.1.2014, the present petitions deserve to be disposed of with direction that if the petitioners have already deposited the amount of training expenses as per the circular of the Director General of Police dated 30.9.2008, the respondent Education-Department shall release their salary. The fact about the deposit of the training expenses shall be verified by the concerned Superintendent of Police on the petitioners' approaching him along with copy of this order, who shall have the training expenses computed as per the aforesaid circular dated 30.9.2008. On NOC being issued by him, the Education Department shall release the salary of the petitioners. It is further directed that if any amount in excess is found to have been deposited by the petitioners or recovered from them under the head of training expenses, the same is liable to be refunded to the petitioners within two months. If the salary for the earlier period has been with held by the respondents, it shall be released within two months too.” 9. If the salary for the earlier period has been with held by the respondents, it shall be released within two months too.” 9. Thereafter, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prafull Mehta (Dr.) Versus State of Rajasthan & Another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3703/2012 has held that stipend is an honorarium in lieu of services rendered by an employee and restrained the authorities from recovering the same when the employee left the job during the course of employment before its completion. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:- “22. It is settled law that every citizen is entitled to get fair wages, remuneration and salary etc. For the services rendered by him or her in lawful manner. If a person is deprived of his hard earned wages or salary by a condition of a contract, then such a condition of this nature would defeat the provisions of various laws. It also involves or implies injury to the property of another. Any person paid for the services rendered cannot be compelled to pay back the wages, remuneration or salary received in lieu if services rendered because the services rendered cannot be undone by leaving the services. ........… ........… 25. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and it is held that the condition of paying the stipend back, in a case a student leaves P.G. course before completion, is declared as void and is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are restrained from recovering the amount of stipend paid to petitioner during post graduation course.” 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law as propounded in the case of Arun Choudhary (supra), Prafull Mehta (Dr.) (supra) and Karanjeet Singh (supra), the respondents were restrained from recovering the salary drawn by the co-petitioner during the course of his employment with the respondent-department and the respondents were directed to determine the amount of training expenses incurred upon the co-petitioner during the course of training. 11. The view taken by the Single Benches of this Court in different matters have been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Meena (supra) with the following directions:- “1. 11. The view taken by the Single Benches of this Court in different matters have been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Meena (supra) with the following directions:- “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.” 12. 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.” 12. Since the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest not only once but thrice by different co-ordinate Benches of this Court and by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Meena (supra), the instant writ petitions stand disposed of with directions to the respondents restraining them to recover the salary drawn by the petitioner during the course of their employment with the respondent- department but directing them to determine the amount of training expenses expanded upon the petitioner during the course of such employment with the respondent-department. 13. After determining the said amount within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioners be intimated about the aforesaid expenses. The petitioner is directed to deposit the same within a period of three months thereafter. 14. After deposition of the aforesaid amount of training expanded upon the petitioners, the respondents shall issue a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioners. 15. With the said observations, these writ petitions stand disposed of. 16. Stay applications and all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.