IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 297 of 2009 (S/B) Rakesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vinjay Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents. Date of Judgment : 23.5.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited went through selection process to find suitable candidates to be appointed in its establishment as Junior Engineers. Petitioner and another gentleman were selected, amongst others, as such Junior Engineers. Petitioner was then offered an appointment. At that time, petitioner was undergoing Bachelor of Technology course and had not completed the same. Petitioner joined the services of Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, when he furnished a bond saying that he would work for four years, and if he does not work for four years, he would be liable to pay a compensation of rupees ten thousand to Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited. A similar undertaking was also given by the said gentleman. After having had joined Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, in order to complete the Bachelor of Technology course, petitioner sought for and was accorded leave from 16.9.2005 to 15.6.2006, on the condition that after he has completed the study 2 leave and has acquired Bachelor of Technology qualification, he would be required to serve Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited for a period of three years, failure of which will expose the petitioner to a liability to pay six months’ salary to Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited. 2. Petitioner completed his Bachelor of Technology course and resumed his duties with Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited on 27.5.2006. Subsequent thereto, petitioner responded to an invitation by PTCUL (Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited) for being appointed as Assistant Engineer. The said response was routed through Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited. Petitioner was selected by PTCUL and was offered appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. Accordingly, on 11.10.2008, petitioner submitted his resignation and sought acceptance thereof w.e.f. 31.10.2008 (Forenoon). On 24.10.2008, Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited accepted the resignation of petitioner w.e.f. 31.10.2008 (Forenoon), but directed the petitioner to pay ten days’ salary for the petitioner did not work since 11.10.2008, rupees ten thousand since the petitioner did not work for four years, and six months’ salary aggregating to Rs. 81,036/- since the petitioner did not work for three years after completion of his study leave, as was accorded on 8.8.2008 for the period 16.9.2005 to 15.6.2006. This demand letter is the subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ petition. 3. In respect of demand for ten days’ salary, there appears to be no grievance on the part of the 3 petitioner. In respect of the second demand of rupees ten thousand, it is the contention of petitioner that he has completed four years’ service taking into account the period of leave granted to him from 16.9.2005 to 15.6.2006. It is not disputed that if such leave is deducted from the period of service rendered, the period would be less than four years. The question is whether the period of leave from 16.9.2005 to 15.6.2006 can be treated as part of service rendered? The fact remains that the period of leave accorded from 16.9.2005 to 15.6.2006 was an extraordinary leave, to which the petitioner was not otherwise entitled to in accordance with the service rules and, accordingly, the said leave was granted to the petitioner without pay. That period, therefore, under the circumstances, cannot be treated, in true sense, period spent on service. 4. The important grievance of petitioner is in regard to the third claim. It is the contention of petitioner that another person, who was also selected along with the petitioner by Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and who also had to complete Bachelor of Technology course, was not asked to pay six months’ salary, while he also, being appointed by some other organization, resigned and left the services of Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited. The fact remains that the said person joined the services of Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited after completing his Bachelor of Technology course, and was not required to obtain leave as was obtained by the petitioner. The said person was, therefore, not bound by the terms and conditions akin to those contained in the order of Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited 4 dated 8.8.2005, on which the petitioner acted. In the circumstances, petitioner cannot seek to draw parity with that person in the matter of the subject claim of Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited. 5. Otherwise it was contended that the petitioner has left one organization of the State Government and has joined another organization of the State Government and, accordingly, it was unjust to make the subject demands. The fact remains that Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited has lost the services of petitioner. Maybe another organization of the State Government is now being benefited by the services of the petitioner, but that has nothing to do with enforcement of terms of a contract, inter se Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and the petitioner, as was made by raising the said demand on 25.10.2008. The said demand is not interferable. Accordingly, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 23.5.2011 23.5.2011 Prabodh