Kerala High Court

Valsala Milk A.B vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2022

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                                     &
                   THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
          Thursday, the 7th day of July 2022 / 16th Ashadha, 1944
                             WA NO. 139 OF 2022

     AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2021 IN WP(C) 857/2019 OF THIS COURT

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

     VALSALA MILKA B., AGED 63,W/O.CHANDRAMOHAN, RESIDING AT POURNAMI, TC
     19/1981-1, POOJAPURA,, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK,
     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 012.

BY ADV.SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

  1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER
     EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
     PIN- 695 001.
  2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN,
     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
  3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (H&E) KERALA, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT
     GENERAL (A&E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 009.
  4. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT TREASURY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
     - 695 001.
  5. CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER - 695 572.
  6. THE PRINCIPAL, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KATTAKKADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
     DISTRICT - 695 572.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R4

     This Writ Appeal coming on for orders on 07/07/2022 upon perusing
the appeal memorandum, the court on the same day passed the following:

                                                                    P.T.O.
 EXT.P1:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SANCTIONING ORDER OF DEPUTATION

OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT G.O.(RT) NO.1992/2001/H.EDN

DATED 18.12.2001.

EXT.P2:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BOND DATED 04.01.2002

EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE GOVERNMENT.

EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.N 3/444467/2011/COLLEGIATE

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DATED 12.02.2018 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT

TO THE PETITIONER.

                             ---
             P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.

-----------------------------------------------

Writ Appeal No.139 of 2022

----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 07th day of July, 2022.

REFERENCE ORDER

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 14.12.2021 in W.P.(C) No.857 of 2019. The appellant is

the petitioner in the writ petition. The parties are referred to in

this order as they appear in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner was a Selection Grade Lecturer

in Christian College, Kattakada, an aided institution. She was

accorded sanction for deputation to undergo PhD programme

under one of the Faculty Improvement Programmes of the

University Grants Commission in terms of Ext.P1 order on

condition that she should execute a bond in the prescribed form

for reimbursement of the pay and allowances for the period of

deputation in the event of unsuccessful completion of the PhD

programme. The petitioner availed the deputation subject to

the condition mentioned in Ext.P1 order. Ext.P2 is the bond

executed by the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner could

not complete the PhD Programme successfully. She rejoined

duty on 14.06.2004 after completing the deputation period and

retired almost 7 years thereafter on 31.03.2011. The petitioner

was not disbursed her Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity on her

retirement on the ground that she had not discharged the

liability in terms of Ext.P2 bond. While so, on 12.02.2018, the

petitioner was issued Ext.P6 communication by the second

respondent informing her that a sum of Rs.5,75,258/- has been

fixed as her liability in terms of the bond and if she fails to pay

the said amount together with interest, the same will be

recovered from her Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. The writ

petition was one instituted challenging Ext.P6 communication.

The petitioner also sought in the writ petition a direction to the

respondents to disburse the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity

payable to her with interest. The case set out by the petitioner

in the writ petition is that insofar as no liability has been fixed

with notice to her within three years from the date of

retirement, the proposal to recover the liability in terms of the

bond from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity is unsustainable.

It is also the case of the petitioner that the amount mentioned

in Ext.P6 communication represents the pay and allowances

received by her during the period of deputation and the same

cannot be fixed as liability in terms of the bond on the ground

that she has not successfully completed the PhD programme.

According to the petitioner, the obligation in terms of the bond

was only to serve the college for a period of three years after

completion of the PhD programme and that she has discharged

the said obligation. It was however conceded by the petitioner

in the writ petition that since she could not complete

successfully the PhD programme, she is liable to pay in terms of

the bond a sum of Rs.7,000/- with interest by way of penalty.

3. The learned Single Judge, having regard to the

provisions contained in Note-3 to Rule 3 of Part III of Kerala

Service Rules, quashed Ext.P6 communication holding that

since the liability of the petitioner was not quantified and

intimated to her within three years from the date of her

retirement, the same cannot be recovered from her Death-cum-

Retirement Gratuity. The learned Single Judge did not however

direct the respondents to disburse the Death-cum-Retirement

Gratuity of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the

said decision of the learned Single Judge.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

also the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that insofar as the learned Single Judge chose to set

aside Ext.P6 communication, the respondents should have been

directed to disburse the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity

payable to the petitioner with interest. It was also submitted by

the learned counsel that Ext.P6 communication is unsustainable

in law inasmuch as she has no liability to reimburse the pay and

allowances received during the period of deputation in terms of

the bond. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the

decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Ajitha, 2021 (1)

KLT OnLine 1052, in support of the said contention.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader

submitted that insofar as the petitioner has not completed

successfully the PhD programme, she is liable to pay not only

the pay and allowances received during the period of

deputation, but also the penalty stipulated in the bond. As

regards the contention that the liability of the petitioner in

terms of the bond cannot now be recovered from her Death-

cum-Retirement Gratuity, the submission made by the learned

Government Pleader was that it has been clarified by this Court

in W.P.(C) No.21588 of 2019 that fixation of liability in terms of

the statutory provision is not necessary in a case of this nature

where there exists a bond.

7. We have considered the contentions raised by

the learned counsel for the parties on either side.

8. It is seen that in W.P.(C) No.21588 of 2019, this

Court has clarified that fixation of liability is not necessary in a

case where the pensioner has executed a bond for

reimbursement of his/her liability. In the light of the said

decision, the only question which survives is the question

relating to the extent of the liability of the petitioner under the

bond.

9. The relevant portion of Ext.P2 bond executed

by the petitioner reads thus:

" KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT WE, Smt. Valsala Milka B, resident of Pournami, TC19/1981-1, Poojappura, Thirumala Village, Trivandrum Taluk, Trivandrum District at present employed as Lecturer (Selection Grade) in Physics in the Christian College, Kattakada (hereinafter called the Bounden) and Smt.Vimala S, daughter of P. Johnson, Ayaniyarathala house, Aralummoodu P.O, Neyyattinkara (Lecturer. Selection Grade in Malayalam, Christian College, Kattakada) (H.E.full address) and Smt. Daisylet T.M. daughter of Y. Massillamony, S.D.Sadanam, Mulayamcodu, Kattakkada P.O. (Lecturer, Senior Scale in Economics, Christian College, Kattakada (hereinafter called the sureties) do hereby jointly and severally bind ourselves and our respective heirs executors and administrators to pay to the Governor of Kerala (Hereinafter called the Government on demand the entire amount drawn by the Bounden by way of pay and allowances for the period of his deputation to undergo Ph.D. (Physics) course under the University of Kerala together with a penalty of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten thousand Only) (in words also) with interest thereon from the date of demand at Government rate for the time being in force on Government loans or if payment is made in a country other than India the equivalent of the said amount in the currency of the country converted at the official rate of exchange between that country and India and also all costs and all charges and expenses that shall or may have been incurred by Government for realization thereof."

WHEREAS the Management of Christian College, Kattakada as agreed to depute the Bounden for the purpose of undergoing Ph.D. Course under Faculty Improvement Programme for the period from 27.3.2001 to 31.3.2002 and have undertaken to protect her emoluments during the period of deputation, to give her necessary increments as and when due and to take her back to her post without affecting her seniority and other service benefits enjoyed by her previously.

WHEREAS the Government have in G.O.(Rt) No.1992/2001/H. Edn. dtd 18.12.2001 (hereinafter called the said order which shall form part of this Deed as if incorporated herein) agreed to treat the Bounden as Government sponsored candidate for

undergoing the course under the Faculty Improvement Programme of the University Grants Commission during the period specified above.

WHEREAS THE Government have agreed to pay to the Bounden during the period of the said deputation his full pay and allowance subject to the terms and conditions contained in the said order and those hereinafter appearing to which the Bounden and sureties have also agreed.

WHEREAS for the better protection of the Government the Bounden has agreed to execute this Bond with such conditions as hereunder written:

AND WHEREAS the said Sureties have agreed to execute this bond as Sureties on behalf of the Bounden.

NOW THE ABOVE WRITTEN OBLIGATION IS THAT in the event of the Bounden failing to serve the Christian College, Kattakada (H.E. name of the College) for period of three years immediately and continuously after her return to duty on completion of her course the Bounden and Sureties shall forthwith pay to the Government on demand the amounts referred to above together with interest thereon at Government rates for the time being in force on Government loans and in case the Bounden fails to complete the course successfully with in the grace period, the Bounden and Sureties shall pay to the Government a penalty of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only) (in words also) together with interest at the rates mentioned above unless the Bounden successfully completes the course at her own expense within two years from the date of expiry of the period of deputation and upon payment of all such sums the above written obligation shall be void and of no effect otherwise this shall be and remain in full force and effect.

Provided further that the Bounden and Sureties hereby agree that all sums due to Government under or by virtue of this Bond shall be recoverable jointly and severally from the Bounden and the Sureties and their properties both movable and immovable under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force, as though such sums are arrears of land revenue and in such other manner as the Government may deem fit.

Provided always that the liability of sureties hereunder shall not be impaired or discharged by reason of time being

granted or by any forebearance, act or omission of the Government or any person authorised by them (whether with or without the consent or knowledge of the sureties) not shall it be necessary for the Government to sue the Bounden before suing sureties or any of them for amounts due hereunder."

The terms of this bond were originally interpreted by a learned

Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.884 of 2013 to the

effect that the bounden has no obligation to reimburse the pay

and allowances received during the period of deputation in the

event of unsuccessful completion of the PhD programme, if

he/she serves the institution for a period of three years after

the deputation. As pointed out by the learned Government

Pleader, the correctness of the said decision was doubted by

another learned Single Judge and the matter was referred to a

Division Bench. The Division Bench answered the said

reference in Premasukumar v. Secretary, Higher

Education Department and Others, (2019 (3) KLT 912) to

the effect that the teacher who fails to complete successfully

the PhD programme is liable not only to reimburse the pay and

allowances received during the period of deputation, but also

liable to pay the penalty in terms of the bond. The view taken

by the Division Bench is that serving the college without

successful completion of the programme will not absolve the

bounden from the liability under the bond. Paragraphs 6 to 10

of the judgment in Premasukumar read thus:

"6. From a reading of the aforementioned Clauses, it is evident that a Fellowship is granted with the objective of providing an opportunity to the teacher to pursue academic studies or research and acquire further qualification, so that it would inure to the benefit of the students. Therefore, the teacher is bound to utilise the Fellowship and acquire the Ph.D/M.Phil Degree within the fellowship period. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology and another v. Suresh Chandra Verma (2013 (3) KLT Suppl. 91 (SC) = (2013) 10 SCC 411).

7. The facts of the cited case would show that the respondent, a Lecturer in the appellant institute, had availed study leave for three years for pursuing his Ph.D. Though the respondent executed necessary bond, undertaking to complete the course within the leave period, he failed to do so. The appellant institute demanded refund of the amount paid to the respondent during the period of his study for Ph.D., in terms of the bond executed by him. The respondent challenged the recovery proceedings initiated against him before the High Court successfully. Aggrieved, the institute filed appeal before the Supreme Court. After careful perusal of the terms of the bond executed by the respondent, the Apex Court found that there is no clear cut provision imposing the condition that if a candidate fails to complete the course of study during the period of sanctioned leave, he will have to refund to the institute the total amount of leave salary and other benefits availed by him during the period. Even after noticing the absence of a specific clause in the bond, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, to the extent of allowing the institute to retain the amounts already recovered from the respondent. The reasoning of the Apex Court for arriving at such conclusion is contained in paragraph 11 of the judgment which is extracted hereunder:-

"11. The abovementioned provision has a laudable

object to achieve. A government servant or person like the respondent is given study leave with salary and allowances, etc. so as to enable him to complete the course of study and to furnish the certificate of his successful completion, so that the institute which has sanctioned the study leave would achieve the purpose and object for granting such study leave. The purpose of granting study leave with salary and other benefits is for the interest of the institution and also the person concerned so that once he comes back and joins the institute the students will be benefited by the knowledge and expertise acquired by the person at the expense of the institute. A candidate who avails of leave but takes no interest to complete the course and does not furnish the certificate to that effect is doing a disservice to the institute as well as the students of the institute. In other words, such a person only enjoys the period of study leave without doing any work at the institute and, at the same, enjoys the salary and other benefits, which is evidentially not in public interest. Public money cannot be spent unless there is mutual benefit. Further, if the period of study leave was not extended or no decision was taken on his representation, he could have raised his grievances at the appropriate forum."

8. We are in respectful agreement with the said reasoning. The objective of awarding Teacher Fellowship is to provide an opportunity to do research or pursue academic studies leading to the award of M.Phil/Ph.D degree. Failure to acquire the degree would indicate that the teacher has not utilised the opportunity properly. This recalcitrance on the part of the teacher is at the cost of public exchequer and the students. Therefore, necessarily, the teacher is bound to refund the salary and other benefits received by her during the course of the Fellowship which she failed to utilise properly.

9. In this regard, Clause 4.3 of the Guidelines for FIP assumes importance. Clause 4.3 provides for reimbursement of the salary of the substitute teacher appointed by the College in place of the teacher selected for award of Teacher Fellowship by the U.G.C. As far as the instant case is concerned, there is evidence to effect that a substitute teacher was appointed in the place of the respondent and that the UGC had reimbursed the salary of that substitute teacher. Under such circumstances, the bond cannot be interpreted or understood as restricting the amount payable by the teacher to a sum of `7,000/-.

10. According to us, even a literal interpretation of the bond would indicate otherwise. Under the bond, the Bounden undertakes to pay back the salary and allowances received by the teacher with interest thereon, in the event of the teacher failing to serve the college for a period of three years immediately and continuously after return to duty on completion of the course, and to pay a penalty of `7,000/- together with interest, in the event of the teacher failing to complete the course successfully within the grace period and that upon payment of all such sums, the written obligation shall be void and of no effect, and that otherwise, the bond shall remain in full force and effect. The Clause is specific to the effect that the teacher should serve the College for a period of three years after successful completion of the course. This Clause has two limbs; one is successful completion of the course and the other is serving the college for a continuous period of three years after such successful completion. Therefore, serving of the College without successful completion of the course will not absolve the Bounden from the liability under the bond. A Lecturer, who has successfully completed the course, but, fails to serve the College would be liable under the bond. The failure to successfully complete the course within the stipulated period would entail in an additional penalty of `7,000/-. Hence, the finding of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.884 of 2013 that a teacher, who failed to complete the course successfully within the period, need pay only `7,000/- together with interest, is contrary to the objective of the Faculty Improvement Programme as also the terms of the bond and is hence found to be not good law. The reference is answered by holding that in the event of a teacher awarded Fellowship for Ph.D course, failing to complete the course and acquiring the degree within the Fellowship period, he/she would be liable to refund the salary and other benefits received during the fellowship period."

As evident from the extracted paragraphs, reliance has been

placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Sant Longowal

Institute of Engineering and Technology and Another v.

Suresh Chandra Verma (2013) 10 SCC 411 wherein the

Division Bench has arrived at its conclusion as referred to

above.

10. It is seen however that later in Ajitha, another

Division Bench of this Court interpreted the terms of the very

same bond to the effect that the bounden has no obligation to

reimburse the pay and allowances during the period of

deputation in the event of unsuccessful completion of the PhD

programme if he/she serves the institution for a period of three

years after the deputation. Paragraphs 12 to 16 of the

judgment of this Court in Ajitha read thus:

"12. A perusal of the above said judgment would make it clear that relevant condition in the bond executed by the teacher concerned in the said case in W.P.(C) No.884 of 2013 is similar and identical to that as made out in Annexures A3 and A4 in the instant case. Hence this Court, after hearing both sides, is in respectful agreement with the views already rendered by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.884 of 2013. In the instant case, it is common ground that the teacher concerned after completion of the FIP Programme had returned back to the parent College and rejoined duty and had continued in service for three years. Therefore, the first limb of the relevant condition of Annexure A3 will not come into play for the simple reason that the said clause will arise only if the incumbent/teacher concerned does not join duty after completing the FIP Programme and so for a period of three years thereafter. Hence at best only the second limb of Annexure A3 for payment of the penalty amount of Rs.7,000/- for not successfully obtaining the Ph.D.Degree alone will come into play in the instant case. The learned Senior Government Pleader has made reference to Annexure R2(c) appendix of

the above said agreements, which are stated to be in more general terms. Even going by the stand of the Department, Annexure R2(c) is only an appendix to Annexure A3 and A4 documents and there cannot be any doubt that the main agreements are those contained in Annexures A3 and A4. The penalty amount envisaged in the appendix is Rs.10,000/- which is reduced to Rs.7000/- in Annexures A3 and A4. The exact factual contingencies which justify the recovery of the full pay and allowances are explicitly and precisely enumerated in Annexure A3 and therefore the said clause in Annexure A3 as reiterated subsequently in Annexure A4 alone will govern the field. Hence this Court does not find any cogent grounds to deviate from the well considered view rendered by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.884 of 2013 and the Tribunal cannot be faulted for placing reliance on the said judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.884 of 2013.

13. In that regard the contention of the original applicant based on clause 8.3 of Annexure R2(a) norms issued by the U.G.C. would also assume importance and relevance inasmuch as clause 8.3 specifically envisages that if a Teacher Fellow fails to complete his/her Ph.D/M.Phil. Programme and leaves it midway, he/she has to refund the entire amount paid to him by the U.G.C. during his/her Teacher Fellowship.

14. The learned Senior Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case in Sant Longowal Institute's case supra (2013 (3) KLT Suppl. 91 (SC) = (2013) 10 SCC 411). A reading of the judgment in Sant Longowal Institute's case supra (2013 (3) KLT Suppl. 91 (SC) = (2013) 10 SCC 411) would make it clear that the teacher incumbent concerned was granted three years study leave for the period from 24.7.1999 to 22.7.2002 and he had joined back as Lecturer in November 2003 (see paragraph 2 thereof). The bond executed by the said teacher is extracted in paragraph 7 of the said judgment and it was found that the said bond conditions are quite vague and does not envisage a case of recovery from the full pay and allowances paid to the teacher concerned, if he does not subsequently secure the Ph.D. Degree. However, a reading of paragraph 9 of the said decision would make it clear that later the institute had amended its norms for bond conditions on 28.6.2002, which appears to be before the expiry of the leave period of the teacher concerned (which was upto 22.7.2002). Moreover, a reading of paragraph 10 of the said judgment would also make it clear that the explicit statutory rules had governed

the field and reference to R.63 of the Rules are contained therein. R.63 of the said Rule considered in paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sant Longowal Institute's case supra (2013 (3) KLT Suppl. 91 (SC) = (2013) 10 SCC 411) would make it clear that explicit provisions are provided in the said Rule for dealing with contingency in question. The Apex Court after considering the facts of the case found that though the bond conditions are vague, the partial refund already effected from the salary of the teacher incumbent concerned may not be interfered with and had also specifically ordered that further balance amount yet to be recovered from the teacher need not be recovered, taking into consideration the facts circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the parties are fully regulated by the conditions in Annexures A3 and A4 agreements.

15. Further, there are no provisions akin to Rule 63 of the Rules considered in paragraph No.9 of the Sant Longowal Institute's case supra (2013 (3) KLT Suppl. 91 (SC) = (2013) 10 SCC 411), in the present case. R.99 of Part I KSR deals with study leave. The said Rule 99 of Part I KSR has been deleted from the statute book with effect from 19.02.2007 as per Gazette notification published on 22.2.2007. The omitted Rule 99 of Part I KSR and the note thereunder read as follows;

"Rule 99. Leave may be granted to officers on such terms as the Government may by general order prescribe to enable them to study scientific, technical or similar problems or to undergo special courses of instructions. The detailed rules framed under this rule are given in Appendix-VI. Note.- For rule regarding the grant of leave without allowance for study purposes in the case of officers not in permanent employ, see Rule 91."

16. The detailed norms and rules framed under R.99 are given in Appendix VI of Part I KSR. Appendix VI deals with rules for grant of study leave of person concerned. The said Appendix VI contains altogether 21 Rules as well as Annexure A and A1 thereto. A reading of Rule 1(3) of the norms in Appendix VI would make it clear that study leave shall not be granted unless (i) the proposed course of study or training shall be of definite advantage from the point of view of public interest (ii) it is for prosecution studies in subjects other than academic or literary subjects and............. Hence it can be seen that Rule 1(3)(ii) of Appendix VI framed under R.99 specifically mandates that the said study leaves covered by R.99 would come into play only if it is for prosecution of studies in subjects other than academic or literary subjects. In

other words, it appears that if the course is meant for Ph.D. or M.Phil, in academic or literary subjects, then there is no question of invoking R.99 or Appendix VI framed thereto. Further, Rule 9 of Appendix VI would make it clear that the Government servant would refund the amount, only if any over payment is made by the Government consequent to the failure of the employer concerned to produce the required certificate of attendance from the institution concerned. Rule 15 thereof deals with execution of bond in terms of Annexure A and A1 attached to Appendix 6. Further, a reading of the operative portion of Annexure A proforma agreement framed under the above said R.15 would make it clear that the liability to pay the amounts to the Government would occur only in cases where the employee concerned resigns or retire from service without returning to duty after expiry of the termination of the period of study leave. The operative portion of Annexure A1 agreement is also on the same lines. Rule 17 framed under R.99 of Part I KSR further mandates that during study leave a Government servant shall draw leave salary equal to the amount admissible during half pay leave under R.93 Part I KSR. Going by the above said provisions, it is broadly clear that the above said Rules contained in R.99 and Appendix VI framed thereunder, may not have any application where the prosecution of studies is meant to acquire a Ph.D. or M.Phil degree in academic or literary subjects. That apart R.99 has been deleted from the Statute Book with effect from 19.2.2007. Hence it can be seen that the factual situation prevailing in the present case is substantially different from the case considered in Sant Longowal Institute's case supra (2013 (3) KLT Suppl. 91 (SC) = (2013) 10 SCC 411).

Moreover, even the Apex Court has given certain equitable directions taking into consideration the peculiar facts circumstances of the case dealt with hereinabove by ordering that whatever has been recovered from the employee need not be refunded to him and that amounts which are not by then recovered from the teacher was ordered not to be recovered. In the light of these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sant Longowal Institute's case supra (2013 (3) KLT Suppl. 91 (SC) = (2013) 10 SCC 411) may not have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case."

As is evident from the extracted paragraphs, in Ajitha, the

Division Bench has arrived at its conclusion following the

decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.884 of 2013

which was overruled in Premasukumar, after distinguishing

the decision of the Apex Court in Sant Longowal relied on

therein.

In the light of the apparent conflict in the opinions

formed by the Division Benches of this Court in

Premasukumar and Ajitha as to the interpretation of the

bond executed by the petitioner, we are of the view that this

matter needs to be resolved by a Larger Bench of this Court.