CWP No. 3748-CAT of 2010 CWP No. 3758-CAT of 2010 CWP No. 3792-CAT of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 3748-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision : 04.03.2010 Vijay Dhiman .....Petitioner Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others ....Respondents And CWP No. 3758-CAT of 2010 Amit Gautam .....Petitioner Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others ....Respondents And CWP No. 3792-CAT of 2010 Abhishek Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others ....Respondents ****** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sanjeev K. Tamak, Advocate for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. Kumar, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.3748-CAT, 3758-CAT and 3792-CAT of 2010. CWP No. 3748-CAT of 2010 CWP No. 3758-CAT of 2010 CWP No. 3792-CAT of 2010 2 In all these cases, the petitioners have executed bonds in favour of the department when they were selected and appointed on the post of J.T.O. (Junior Telecom Officer) in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. By executing the bonds they had undertaken to serve the department for at least five years. Admittedly, they resigned at different times after they have served for more than two years. The respondent-department sought compliance of the bond by filing original application before Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigrah Branch, Chandigarh (for brevity the Tribunal), which was disputed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the agrument that the bonds were executed under any coercion or undue influence or any compelling circumstances. It was clearly stipulated in the agreement that B.S.N.L. was likely to spend substantial amount for imparting training to the petitioners and on a completion of training they were expected to serve B.S.N.L. at least for a period of 5 years on terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement as well as the rule and regulation of B.S.N.L. Therefore, it was not open to the petitioners to leave the service in breach of the terms and conditions of the rule, which has resulted in the seeking refund of the expenditure incurred by the respondent-department for developing their service career. Therefore, non-acceptance of resignation tendered by the petitioners without making recovery of the amount spent on their training has been held to be lawful. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length and find that there is no merit in these petitions. Once the parties have executed a bond stipulating various terms and conditions then they cannot turn-round and argue that it was result of compulsion. There is no CWP No. 3748-CAT of 2010 CWP No. 3758-CAT of 2010 CWP No. 3792-CAT of 2010 3 principle of law that contract or bond could be avoided on that basis. It is doubtful whether there was any compulsion. The terms and conditions of the bond are applicable and the respondents are within their right to invoke the same. The principle laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, AIR 1986 SC 1571 is not attracted to the facts of the present case(s) because there service of the confirmed employees was sought to be terminated by giving him three month's notice and Hon'ble the Supreme Court went into detailed discussion by holding that existence of such a condition would not be binding on an employee of that corporation. The facts in the present case are entirely different and do not call for any detailed examination. Accordingly, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the record of connected cases. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE March 4, 2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Anand JUDGE