IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 2061 of 2008 (OA No. 985 of 1992). Judgement reserved on: 22.2.2010. Date of decision: 2.3.2010. Harnam Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma and Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate vice Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is against the respondent for withholding an amount of Rs.10,000/- out of the gratuity of the petitioner on account of alleged breach of condition of the bond. The petitioner has prayed a direction to release the amount of Rs.10,000/-. It has also been prayed that respondent may be directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the month of November 1988, a prayer for payment of interest has also been made. 2. The further case of the petitioner is that on the basis of interview the petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Engineer and vide letter dated 22.11.1985, he was offered the appointment by Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… the respondent. As per condition No. 15 of the appointment letter, the petitioner was required to execute the bond to serve the respondent for a period of five years. The petitioner had joined his duties on 13.1.1986. The petitioner vide letter dated 12.8.1986 had submitted the surety bond to the Secretary of the Board. 3. The petitioner was selected in the Engineering Service Examination of Union Public Service Commission and his name was recommended for appointment to the Central Engineering Group-A. The petitioner tendered his resignation on 6.9.1988. The resignation of the petitioner was accepted vide office order endorsed to the petitioner vide endorsement dated 28.11.1988. It was mentioned in the office order Annexure A-6 dated 28.11.1988 that GPF amount lying with the Board against account No. HPSEB-18590 shall be withheld in lieu of bond executed by the officer to serve HPSEB till further orders. The petitioner vide letter dated 16.12.1988 Annexure A-7 requested for release of salary for the month of November 1988. The petitioner vide letter dated 22.3.1989 Annexure A-9 again requested the Board for releasing his salary for the month of November 1988. The Secretary vide letter dated 10.5.1989 Annexure A-10 had informed the petitioner that he should deposit the amount of bond with the Chief Accounts Officer of the Board to enable the Board to release his pending dues lying with the Board. 4. The petitioner vide representation dated 14.8.1989 Annexure A-11 brought to the notice of the Secretary of the Board the office memo dated 23.5.1981 of Government of India. He further pointed out that in office memo dated 14.11.1984 it has been …3… mentioned that aforesaid instructions of Government of India were applicable to those also who had applied to Union Public Service Commission prior to the joining of organization. The petitioner was informed that it was not feasible to transfer the bond to Central Works Department. On 19.6.1991 the Chief Accounts Officer was informed by the Secretary of the Board that bond money i.e. Rs.10,000/- be recovered and balance dues, if any, payable to the petitioner be released to him. The Board in Annexure A-16 had shown that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was withheld by the Board on account of bond money and a net amount of Rs.6542/- was payable to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent to withhold an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of alleged breach of bond and withholding of salary for the month of November 1988 is wrong, illegal and arbitrary. 5. The petition has been contested by the respondent by filing reply. It has been stated that in accordance with condition No. 15 of the offer of appointment the petitioner had executed a bond to serve the respondent for a period of five years and in case of breach of bond, the petitioner was under legal and contractual obligation to pay Rs.10,000/- to respondent- Board in lump sum. The petitioner had not served the respondent for five years, therefore, the action of the respondent in effecting recovery of Rs.10,000/- is just, legal and bonafide and within the four corners of the rules. The salary of the petitioner for the month of November 1988 has been paid vide cheque No. 482622 dated 27.8.1990 and a sum of Rs. 6542/- after effecting recovery of Rs. 10,000/- on account of breach of bond was …4… paid to the petitioner through cheque vide Annexure A-16. The respondent in brief has denied the claim of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has not denied that he had executed a bond in favour of the respondent to serve the respondent for a period of five years in terms of condition No. 15 of the appointment letter. The clause 15 of the appointment letter dated 22.11.1985 Annexure A-5 provides that petitioner will have to execute a bond to serve H.P. State Electricity Board for a period five years and in case of breach of bond, he will have to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Board in lump sum. The offer of appointment for the post of Assistant Engineer was given to the petitioner on 22.11.1985 and he joined on 13.1.1986. The resignation of the petitioner was accepted vide office order endorsed to the petitioner on 28.11.1988. Thus the petitioner had served the respondent-Board for less than five years. 7. On behalf of the petitioner, Government of India memo dated 23.5.1981 and office memo dated 14.11.1984 have been relied on the point that if an employee had left the government service to take up another employment in Central/ State Government, Semi Government and Public Sector Undertaking, fresh bond is required to be submitted to new employer for the remaining period of bond. There is no whisper in the petition how memos dated 23.5.1981 and 14.11.1984 of the Central Government are binding on the respondent and applicable to the employees of the respondent. There is nothing in the petition that these instructions have been adopted and made applicable in the respondent -Board. Thus petitioner cannot take any benefit of these instructions. …5… 8. The bond amount is Rs.10,000/- which has been withheld by the respondent under the contract. The salary for the month of November 1988 has been paid to the petitioner vide cheque No. 482622 dated 27.8.1990, another amount of Rs. 6542/- after recovering the amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of breach of bond was paid to the petitioner through cheque vide Annexure A-16. The respondent has enforced the contractual term for withholding amount of Rs.10,000/- of the bond and therefore, it cannot be said that withholding of amount of Rs.10,000/- from the dues of the petitioner is wrong, arbitrary and illegal. 9. No other point was urged. 10. The result of the above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. March 2, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.