01Facts
The petitioners were employed in the Central Prisons Department and, after obtaining permission, applied for and were selected to teaching posts in Government educational institutions.
When granting their No Objection Certificates (NOCs), the Prisons Department required them to pay amounts relating to their training; the petitioners paid and later sought refunds. Their refund representations were rejected by endorsements dated 28 August 2025.
pp. 3–4Relying on W.P. No. 107187/2025 and W.P. No. 3801/2022, the petitioners challenged those endorsements and sought consideration of their representations and repayment.
pp. 4–5, 12–1302Issues
i.1. Whether the Prisons Department could require the petitioners to reimburse training-related amounts as a condition associated with their NOCs and subsequent employment in Government teaching posts.
pp. 4–5, 12–13ii.2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to repayment of the amounts already paid, and whether the rejection endorsements should be set aside.
pp. 12–1303Law Applied
Rule 76(8) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR) provides that a Government servant deputed to authorised training is to be treated as on duty; accordingly, the period attracts pay and allowances.
pp. 8–11In W.P. No. 3801/2022, the Court upheld the view that recovery of salary and allowances paid during such training was unjustified where no repayment undertaking had been obtained, and that a training-manual condition could not override Rule 76(8).
pp. 8–11The subsequent decision in W.P. No. 107187/2025 applied that reasoning and directed consideration of a refund.
pp. 5–6, 11–12The Court also noted that the petitioners had taken up Government education posts with permission and with the benefit referred to under Section 252(b) of the KCSR.
p. 1304Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioners’ circumstances were materially similar to those addressed in W.P. No. 107187/2025 and W.P. No. 3801/2022, and the Government Advocate did not dispute that those decisions covered the case.
pp. 4–5There was no undertaking requiring the petitioners to reimburse salary, allowances, or training expenditure, and permission had been granted for them to take up the teaching posts.
pp. 12–13Applying the prior decisions, the Court held that the rejected refund claims could not stand.
p. 1305Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the endorsements at Annexures R, S and T.
p. 13It directed respondent No. 2 to refund the amounts paid by the petitioners when their NOCs were granted, within 12 weeks of receiving a copy of the order.
p. 13Original Court PDF
SHRUTI PATILvsTHE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
