CWP No. 15136 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 15136 of 2009 Date of decision 23 .2.2010 Manoj Kumar Sharma ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.RS Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. BR Rana ,Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate with Mr. Nidosh Kumar, Advocate for respondents 2 to 4 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 19.8.2009 (P.11) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 630 CH/2009 holding that the bond executed by the petitioner on a non judicial stamp paper to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was binding on him as per the terms of the bond, as he has resigned from the service of the respondent. According to the stipulation made in the bond, the petitioner was liable to serve the respondents as Staff Nurse for a period of two years and in case of his resignation earlier than two years he was to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. While dismissing the claim of the petitioner, the Tribunal has concluded as under: “ We have given our deep consideration to the matter and we CWP No. 15136 of 2009 2 feel that the applicant had joined service of the respondents with his eyes wide open and since applicant had accepted the conditions of appointment, it is upto the discretion of the respondents to implement the conditions individually or severally. He cannot take shelter behind the so called contradictions or mutual exclusivity of the two conditions of each other. No where, it is mentioned that if one condition is fulfilled then the other need not be fulfilled. However, since the recovery of the amount as per the security bond is being effected by the revenue authorities, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this OA. Otherwise also, we see no illegality in the process of recovery in terms of the conditions of his appointment as offered by the respondents and accepted by the applicant by signing the bond executed by him. With these observations, the OA is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs.” We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and find that the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. It is not disputed at any stage that in the appointment letter dated 12.4.2007 (A.2) it was stipulated as under: '(b) The selected candidate will be required to execute a bond on the non judicial stamp paper of Rs. 10/- amounting to Rs. 2.00 lacs (rupees two lacs only) that they shall not leave this institution for two years from the date of their joining as Staff Nurse in this institute. However, if any candidate, who joins as CWP No. 15136 of 2009 3 Staff Nurse, leaves the said job before the expiry of 02 years of their joining, he/she shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs (rupees two lacs only) by way of compensation /losses incurred by this institute due to such midstream departure. (c)Their services will be terminated at any time by giving one month's notice by either side i.e. the appointee or the appointing authority, without assigning any reason whatsoever. It will be open to the Administration to pay salary in lieu of notice period falling short of the stipulated one month. Similarly, if they wish to resign from the post they may do so by depositing pay and allowances in lieu of the notice period by which it falls short of one month alongwith their resignation notice, failing which an interest @ 18% will be charged w.e.f. the date of submission of their resignation notice.” The petitioner joined on 9.5.2007 and on 2.4.2008 (A.3) he requested the respondents to relieve him from service. Subsequently he sent his resignation on 8.4.2008 (A.4). A show cause notice was issued to him on 9.6.2008 stating that he had executed surety bond and as per clause 1(b) of the appointment letter he was required to serve the institute upto two years from the date of his joining. It was further clarified that in case he quits the job he was to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The petitioner submitted his reply on 15.6.2008 (A.6). Thereafter order dated 16.5.2009 (A.7) was passed requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- within 15 days. The petitioner did not deposit the amount and recovery notice dated 6.7.2009 was issued (A.9) for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. Therefore, we find that there is no legal lacuna as the petitioner has CWP No. 15136 of 2009 4 agreed to accept the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment letter. The petition is without any merit and does not warrant admission. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 23.2.2010 Judge okg