Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Kumar Choudhary vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. ... on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/005674]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1932/2022
Ram Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Babu Lal Choudhary, Aged
About 30 Years, A-43, Patel Nagar, Sinwar Moad, Jhotwara,
District Jaipur (Raj.) At Present Posted At 33/11 Kv Gss,
Bhuwana, Badgaon, Dist. Udaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Registered Office Vidyut
Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makarwali Road, Ajmer (Raj.)
Through Its Superintending Engineer (Adc).
2. Assistant Engineer, (O And M) Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Badgaon, 33/11 Kv Gss, Bhuwana, District
Udaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Sangwa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Choudhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
16/02/2023
Learned counsel for the parties fairly submit that the
controversy involved in the present writ petitions is no more res-
integra and it is covered by the decision rendered by a coordinate
Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Manendra Singh Vs. State &
Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12880/2020 and other
connected writ petitions on 03.01.2023. The relevant portion of
the judgment reads as under:
"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
(Downloaded on 23/02/2023 at 11:16:33 PM)
[2023/RJJD/005674] (2 of 3) [CW-1932/2022]
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 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/-.
(Downloaded on 23/02/2023 at 11:16:33 PM)
[2023/RJJD/005674] (3 of 3) [CW-1932/2022]
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 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."
Accordingly, this writ petition is also dismissed in the light of
the aforequoed order passed in Manendra Singh's case (supra). All
pending applications also stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
278-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
