Ms. Sushma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 298 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner, a young lady of 22 years, was enamoured with the prospects of going abroad for a language course on scholarship. She responded to an advertisement taken out by Ministry of Human Resources & Development in the "Times of India", offering "the Italian Government Scholarship" for the year 2002-03.

2. She applied for a two months' category 'D' course in Italian language at the University of Foreigners, Perugia, Italy. Petitioner was selected for the same. She was paid Euro 619.75 per month which was inclusive of cost of stay in Italy and the course fee. The air passage was also to be borne by the petitioner.

3. Under the scheme of the Scholarship, petitioner executed a bond, which appears at Annexure-D to the paper book. It is not in dispute that petitioner undertook the course and successfully completed the same.

4. The cause for filing the writ petition is the Order dated 17th/22nd September, 2003, passed by Under Secretary to the Government of India, requiring petitioner to pay the bond-violation penalty of Rs.60,000/- within 30 days of the receipt of the Order. In case the amount is not paid, interest at 18% per annum would be payable.

5. The Order states the levy of penalty being on account of violation of bond terms. The relevant part of the Order is reproduced for facility of reference :-

"As per clause (g) of the Bond, executed by you with the Government of India, you were required to inform this Ministry of your arrival in India within two weeks time. Since you have overstayed in Italy you are liable to pay Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) as bond violation amount within 30 days of the receipt of this letter failing which penal interest @ 18% will also be charged from you without further notice."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not guilty of violation of the bond terms. He submits that the petitioner after completing the course on 28th June, 2003, was called for recording of attendance on 30th June, 2003. The attendance card, it is claimed, was given only on 8th July, 2003. Petitioner, it is claimed, tried to get reservations for returning to India but no tickets were available prior to 29th July, 2003. She accordingly, returned to India on 29th July, 2003, and within four days of her return informed the respondents of the same. Petitioner has produced a certificate from the travel agent regarding non-availability of tickets prior to 29.7.2003.

7. Respondent did not accept the explanation tendered by the petitioner and imposed the penalty. Petitioner complains of being treated in a discriminatory manner as there are others who had also returned to India late but punitive action has not been taken. No particulars of such cases have furnished. As such, it merits no consideration.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was in breach of the terms of the bond. Reference is invited to clauses `g' and 'i' of the bond, which read as under:-

Clause g : on completion of his/her training or studies failing to return to India or failing to report his/her arrival in India for rejoining to the Government within two weeks of such arrival; or

Clause i : failing to return to India after the expiry of the period of scholarship and staying in India thereafter for a minimum period of three years; or

9. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that to ensure success of Scholarships under the cultural exchange programme, which are bilateral in nature, it was imperative that the participants strictly adhere to the terms, conditions and stipulations thereof. In this case, it is urged, that the petitioner failed to inform the Embassy that she has not taken the shortest direct route to reach Perugia. Learned counsel laid considerable emphasis on the need for discipline and strict implementation of the terms of these programmes. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner knew very well that she had to return on the completion of the course in end June, but she got her return tickets booked for 29.7.2003, which indicates a pre-planned return. Others participants who joined even subsequent to her returned on time.

10. The obligation under clause 'g' is to return to India on completion of training or studies. A perusal of clause 'g' shows that it gets attracted if the trainee fails to return to India on completion of the training or fails to report arrival to the Government within two weeks of such arrival. The instant case is not one where the candidate has failed to return after the course. Petitioner had not been sent for any specialized training whereupon on return, was required to serve the organisation or the Government for a specified period. In fact there is no provision for or any assurance of any assignment or employment to the candidates returning, after completion of course. It is simply a language course which was partly financed by the Governments of India and Italy. There is also no period specified within which the participant must return on completion of the language course. In the absence of any specified period for return or use of expressions such as "immediately thereafter", it has to be "a reasonable period". In the instant case the period of excess stay has been about 3 to 3-1/2 weeks. Petitioner stayed on her own. It did not involve any financial outgoings from the Union of India for the extra period. It is not as if the petitioner failed to complete the course or did not return to India or is not staying in India hereafter.

11. The matter can be viewed at from another perspective. The purpose of cultural exchange programme, including learning of a foreign language is to promote cultural ties, interaction and tourism between the countries. Lord Francis Bacon said as far back as in the 16th century that "Travel is Education". Therefore, in a case, where a candidate sent on scholarship, spends another 2 to 3 weeks, in the country, where she has gone to learn the language, such stay would only enrich her experience and would complement the purpose of her course. In my view, respondents have mis-directed themselves in adopting an approach by which a few weeks of stay after the completion of the course is regarded as a breach of the terms of the bond and as seriously affecting the sanctity of scholarship programme. The said approach, apart from being a mis-directed one, is a pedantic one, which benefits none and would rather dis-courage participants to the scholarship programme.

12. On a query from the Court as to whether respondent-UOI had suffered any pecuniary loss on account of stay after the completion of language course, learned counsel for the respondent very fairly stated that it cannot be so said and the respondents were only concerned with ensuring strict adherence to the terms of the programme.

13. In view of the foregoing discussions in para Nos.8 to 12, it is held that petitioner is not in breach of Clause (g) and Clause (i) of the bond. There has been substantial compliance with the terms. There was no period specified within which, upon completion of the language course, petitioner was required to return. Petitioner has duly fulfillled the requirement of intimating her return within two weeks of arrival. There has also been compliance with Clause (i), as petitioner has returned to India after completion of scholarship and is staying here. In fact, it is indicated by the petitioner during the hearing that she has not received any assignment or employment. In view of the finding, as aforesaid, the impugned demand dated 17th/22nd September, 2003 is quashed, as the same has been raised without there being any breach of the terms of the bond. In these circumstances, it is also not necessary to go into the question as to whether respondents were entitled only to reasonable compensation or to recover the amount of penalty, as specified, especially when admittedly no pecuniary loss has been caused.

Writ petition is allowed.