HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12880/2020 Manendra Singh S/o Shri Lal Chand, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Badripur, Paramdara, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Registered Office Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makarwali Road, Ajmer (Raj.) Through Its Superintending Engineer (Raj.).
2. Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Gangrar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11637/2020 Ravi Prakash Meena S/o Shri Hari Narayan Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Vpo Nangal Bersi, Teh Dausa, District Dausa (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. Jodhpur Vidyut Nigam Limited, Registered Office New Power House, Jodhpur (Raj.) Through Its Secretary (Admn.) Jodhpur Discom, Jodhpur.
2. Superintendent Engineer (O And M), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur Discom, Jalore (Raj.).
3. Assistant Engineer, (O And M) Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur Discom Raniwara, Jalore (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12456/2020 Gopal Krishna Verma S/o Shri Ramswaroop Verma, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Raigaron Ka Mohalla, Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Registered Office Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makarwali Road, Ajmer (Raj.) Through Its Superintending Engineer (M And P). (Downloaded on 05/01/2023 at 08:41:01 PM)
(2 of 6)
2. Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jahajpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12459/2020 Mamta Khinchi D/o Shri Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 71/31 Sec.-7, Block-72, Agrwal Farm, Mansarovar, District Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Registered Office Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Superintending Engineer (M And P).
2. Personal Officer, (O And M) Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Tonk (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12883/2020 Vimal Meena S/o Shri Hanuman Sahay Meena, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 15, Laxminagar, Akhepura, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Registered Office Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Superintending Engineer (O And M)
2. Assistant Engineer, (A-II) Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur Discom, Dholpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Papu Sangwa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohit Choudhary
Mr. Vipul Dharania
Mr. Vikram Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 03/01/2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. (Downloaded on 05/01/2023 at 08:41:01 PM)
(3 of 6) Since all the writ petitions involve common question of law and arise out of the similar orders passed by the respondents, therefore, they are being heard and decided by this common judgment.
The present writ petitions have been filed against the orders passed by the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioners for accepting their resignation.
Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Commercial Assistant-II in the respondent-department in the year 2019. The terms and conditions of the appointment order contain a Clause that if the probationer trainees are not desirous to continue the service with the respondents for a period exceeding two years and if they tender resignation, then they will have to refund the expenses incurred by the respondents on their training etc. The petitioners were also supposed to refund the entire amount of remuneration/salary subject to the entire amount to the maximum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Since the petitioners tendered their resignation within a period of two years from the date of joining, therefore, the respondents have issued letters for the recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- for accepting their resignation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that such condition is onerous and they cannot be compelled to pay this amount. He submits that the writ petitions may kindly be allowed and their resignation may be accepted without pressing for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the terms and conditions of the offer letter of appointment itself, it is very clear that in case, the petitioners are not desirous (Downloaded on 05/01/2023 at 08:41:01 PM) (4 of 6) of continuing with the services of the respondents, then the expenses incurred in the training etc. shall have to be refunded with the upper ceiling of Rs.1,50,000/- and since the petitioners had received the emoluments more than 1,50,000/-, therefore, the respondents have rightly issued the letter of payment for refund of Rs.1,50,000/- upon the petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions presumed by the petitioners may be dismissed.
Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 304/2021 Manisha Devi Vs. Jaipur Vidyuat Nigam Limited & Anr. decided on 16.04.2021 wherein the Division Bench has held that the condition imposed on a candidate for submission of a bond is required to adhere to as the same has been accepted by the petitioners at the time of securing the job and, therefore, the petitioners are liable to pay the amount in terms of the bond furnished by them to the respondents.
I have considered the submission made at the Bar and gone through the pleadings.
The petitioners have joined the respondent-department in pursuance of the appointment orders issued in their favour in the year 2019 on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. For brevity, the condition No.6 is reproduced as under:-
"6. At the time of joining duties, the above probationer Trainees, shall have to execute a Bond (proforma enclosed as Appendix-A) on Non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.500/- issued in the name of candidate with the specific purpose of executing bond in favour of JDVVNL, for giving an undertaking that he/she will not leave his/her training/service or resign or take-up another employment during the (Downloaded on 05/01/2023 at 08:41:01 PM) (5 of 6) period of Probation-Training as well as within one year after completion of Probation-Training, and also during any other training period as well as after completion of such training within a minimum period of 1 year if such training period is for a period exceeding 3 months but up to 6 months, and within 2 years if it exceeds 6 months. In case he/she violates these provisions, he/she will refund to JDVVNL all emoluments paid to him/her, including the expenses incurred by JdVVNL period, subject to maximum of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupee One lac fifty thousand) allowances under the relevant regulations and any other amount that may be due to JdVVNL, together with interest @12% per annum from the date of demand to the date of payment inlump- sum."
In pursuance of the condition No. 6, the petitioner have submitted the bonds which are also placed on record by the respondents. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners have secured the appointment on the terms and conditions mentioned in their letter and they have also furnished a surety bond in support of their appointment as per the regulations. The acceptance of the terms and conditions by the petitioners clearly goes to show that they were ready and willing to comply with the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment made by the respondents. If the petitioners are willing to leave the job of the respondents, then their resignation were to be accepted on the condition that they will deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.
Since the conditions are unambiguous and clear and the same having been accepted by the petitioners while accepting the job, therefore, they cannot turn back and say that their resignation may be accepted and refund of Rs.1,50,000/- ordered against the petitioners should be waived or should not be allowed to be imposed upon them. The rules of game were very clear (Downloaded on 05/01/2023 at 08:41:01 PM) (6 of 6) when petitioners accepted the offer of appointment and, therefore, they cannot now retract from the condition which is not suitable to them. Since the Division Bench in the similar circumstances has already rejected such prayer in the case of Manisha Devi Meena (supra), I am of the considered view that the petitioners are under an obligation to make the refund of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as demanded by the respondents. There is no illegality in the orders passed by the respondents against the petitioners.
The writ petitions being bereft of merit are hereby dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 178-182/nitin/-
(Downloaded on 05/01/2023 at 08:41:01 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)