C.R.No.6984 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6984 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.8.2011 Dr. Amardeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. R.C. Chaudhary,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab. JASWANT SINGH, J Plaintiff-petitioner Dr. Amardeep Singh has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 9.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which an appeal against the order dated 6.2.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Patiala dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a Civil suit No.243 dated 20.12.2006 for declaration to the effect that the bond dated 22.4.1999 executed between the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant-respondent, rejection of his resignation, withholding of GPF along with salary for the period 24.4.2002 to 16.5.2002 are illegal and arbitrary with further prayer for mandatory injunction directing the C.R.No.6984 of 2009 #2# defendant-respondent to accept the resignation of the plaintiff and release his salary for the period referred above along with GPF amount and other dues; and lastly praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from recovering bond amount of Rs.2 lacs from the plaintiff-petitioner or his sureties in any manner. Along with the civil suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was also filed for interim injunction but the same was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 6.2.2007 (P.1). On an appeal having been filed, the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide impugned order dated 9.6.2009, hence the present petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that although as per the bond executed by the plaintiff-petitioner, he was supposed to serve the department for five years but he actually served for three years and four months approximately and as such even if a recovery is effected from the petitioner, the same can be done only on pro rata basis as has been done in the cases of other employees. Learned counsel has referred to a particular instance in the case of one Dr. Jasbir Singh Taneja, Medical Officer Service No.4930 by placing on record the copy of order dated 27.9.2006 vide which he was allowed the voluntary retirement. C.R.No.6984 of 2009 #3# On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that both the courts below have rightly passed the impugned order and the petitioner cannot take the benefit of Dr. Taneja's case being entirely on different footing as he had served the department for twenty years but the petitioner has served the department only for three years and four months. A perusal of impugned orders passed by the courts below clearly establishes that the plaintiff-petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer vide order dated 5.3.1999 with a condition of completing two years probation period. During the probation period, he applied for leave of any kind due for undergoing his Post Graduate Course i.e M.D at King George Medical College (Dental), Lucknow. At the time of sanctioning the first time leave of the kind due vide Endst. Dated 19.4.1999, the plaintiff-petitioner was asked to execute a bond of Rs.2 lacs in favour of the Government to serve the Punjab Government for a period of five years after the completion of P.G Course. Thereafter, he was granted one year leave with effect from 25.4.1999 subject to extension from year to year basis and that too with a condition to execute a bond, which was executed by the plaintiff- petitioner voluntarily and duly attested by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malout. In the bond, it was made clear that the plaintiff-petitioner will serve the Department for a period of five years after completion of his P.G Course, failing which, he will have to deposit the bond money C.R.No.6984 of 2009 #4# of Rs.2 lacs. After completion of his course, he joined at Civil Hospital, Barnala on 16.5.2002 and in view of his bond, the plaintiff- petitioner was supposed to serve the Department for a period of five years after completion of his P.G Course i.e upto 15.5.2007. But without completing the period of five years, the plaintiff-petitioner submitted his resignation dated 13.9.2005, which, in my opinion, was rightly not accepted by the defendant-respondents. It is to be noticed that the prayer made in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC is virtually the main relief claimed by the plaintiff-petitioner in his suit, which cannot be granted to him while deciding the interim injunction application. Despite that both the courts have entertained the plea regarding the interim injunction and have concurrently declined to exercise their discretion in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. This Court also does not find any justifiable reason to differ with the judicious discretion exercised by the courts below. So far as the case of Dr. Taneja's case is concerned that has been clearly distinguished by the defendants-respondents in the affidavit dated 22.3.2011 sworn by Dr. J.P. Singh, Director, Health and Family Welfare Punjab wherein he has clearly stated that Dr. Taneja had served the Department for almost twenty years and thereafter he sought voluntary retirement whereas in the present case, the petitioner has served the department for only three years and four months. So far as, the case of Dr. Taneja is concerned, he was granted study leave for Directorate Degree (D.M) in Cardiology, which is not a Post Graduate C.R.No.6984 of 2009 #5# Degree rather it is a Super-specialization and he executed a bond of Rs.3 lacs for serving the Department for five years. After completion of his Directorate, Dr. Taneja joined at Government Medical College, Patiala but after serving for three years and seven months after completion of his Directorate, he gave a notice of three months on 12.1.2006 for voluntary retirement after completion of twenty years service with a request that he was ready to deposit the proportionate bond money for remaining period of service. In these circumstances, the Government sanctioned his voluntary retirement under Rule 3(2) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 and he deposited the proportionate bond money and as such the same is clearly distinguishable from the case of the petitioner. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment dated 9.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala below warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. August 17, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE