CW 3669/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3669/08 Virendra Singh Rajora Versus UOI & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 28/05/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Virendra Dangi, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order Ann.12 dated 4th January, 2008 whereby he has been asked to repay a sum which was spent on him during the period he has served in the office of respondents. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Works Manager on probation vide order dated 26th May, 2006 for the period of two years – pursuant to which, he joined and furnished a bond which was duly executed in which a condition was stipulated that in the event of refusal to serve the Government of India if so required for a period of three years from the expiry of his period of probation as Junior Works Manager [Probation] in that event he has to refund the money which has been paid during the period of probation/training in full. After accepting the condition of bond, petitioner joined service. It appears that after serving for almost a year on probation, he tendered resignation Ann.4 taking permission/acceptance for his resignation w.e.f. 16th April, 2007. Respondents after due consideration accepted his application for resignation in terms of condition referred to in the bond executed which is evident from Ann.10 dated 17th November, 2007 and accordingly, in CW 3669/08 [2] terms of condition of bond which was executed by petitioner order has been issued to refund the said amount which has been paid to him during the period in question. Counsel for petitioner submits that other similarly situated persons who too joined service as Junior Works Manager on tendering resignation they have only been called to pay Rs.10,000/-. Statement has also been placed on record along with additional affidavit. Counsel further submits that action of the respondents in asking petitioner to pay a sum which was paid during the period of probation to the petitioner even in terms of bond executed, is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In addition to it, counsel further submits that once his resignation has been accepted by the respondents w.e.f. 17th November, 2007 [Ann.10] with the condition that he will comply the conditions of bond and refund the amount as accepted by him as one of the condition of bond. No amount can further be charged from him after his resignation being accepted. So far as case of present petitioner is concerned, he executed a bond at the time of joining service in reference to Ann.1 dated 26th May, 2006 that in the event of leaving service, he has to refund the total amount which has been spent/paid to the petitioner during the period of probation. The condition, which is relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced as under: “Now the conditions of the above written obligation is that in the event of the above bounden Virendra Singh Rajora (1) leaving his/her service under the CW 3669/08 [3] Government of India as Junior Works Manager [Prob] or in the event of his/her refusal or failure to serve the Govt. of India if so required, for a period of three years from the expiry of his/her period of probation whether as Junior Works Manager [Prob] of in any other employment indicated by the Govt. of India the above bounden Virendra Singh Rajora (1) and Smt. Laxmi Rao (2) shall on demand refund to the President of India his successors or assigns all moneys paid to the above bounden Virendra Singh Rajora (1) or expended on his/her account in respect of his/her probation and appointment as Junior Works Manager [Prob] and in the matter of deciding as to that money are so to be refunded the decision of the Government of India shall be final. AND upon the making of such refund, the above written obligation shall be void, and of no effect otherwise it shall remain in full force and virtue.” In view of bond being duly executed by petitioner, he is under an obligation to repay in the event of leaving service and with this condition his resignation has been accepted by the authority. Thus, in opinion of this court, action of the respondents in calling the petitioner to repay the amount referred to in Ann.12 does not call for interference. So far as submission made by counsel for petitioner that their act is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, in opinion of this court, is of no substance for the reason that on the basis of statement which has been placed on record in the form of Schedule, no adverse inference can be drawn with regard to the condition of bond which was executed and it is CW 3669/08 [4] not possible for this court to examine in the facts of instant case. Even otherwise, once the petitioner has filled the bond he is bound by its condition duly executed. No parity in such matters can be claimed. As regards second submission made, in opinion of this court, is that excess amount has been charged which is not in terms of bond filled by him, he will be at liberty to make representation to the concerned authority who will consider and examine whether amount which is being charged from him is in excess in terms of bond or not. This court finds no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA3669CW2008 28-5.doc