PunjabHaryana High Court H.S.E.B vs Ravinder Kumar Gupta on 2 December, 2025 **** RSA23201998 (O&M) Haryana State Electricity Board, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula . . . . Appellant V/s. Shri Ravinder Kumar Gupta and others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 28.11.2025 Pronounced on: 02.12.2025 **** **** Present: Ms. Anshul Agnihotri, Advocate, for Mr. R.S. Chahar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Raj Kumar Rana, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This Regular Second Appeal challenges concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff Board for recovery of ₹31,171.81 from defendant No.1 (Ravinder Kumar Gupta and others) was dismissed by the Trial Court on 27.05.1996, and that dismissal was affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 29.01.1998. 2. For clarity the parties are referred to as they stood in the Trial Court. Trial Court record has been perused. 3.1 Facts : The plaintiff body was a statutory corporate body constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. In 1987, the Board advertised for Graduate Technical Apprentices. Defendant No.1 applied and was offered appointment vide memo dated 25.04.1988. He executed a printed bond on 05.05.1988 (Ex.P7) with two sureties (defendants Nos.2 & 3). Clause 5 of the appointment letter required the appointee to serve for at least five years after completion of training and, if he left earlier, to 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on 03122025 06:43:04 ::: RSA23201998 2025:PHHC:167559 reimburse the Board the cost of training/salary/allowances together with interest @ 9% p.a. 3.2 Defendant No.1 joined training at G.P. Panipat Thermal Power Station but resigned on 28.02.1989 to join Central Government service (Ministry of Power & Energy) w.e.f. 01.03.1989. The Board demanded ₹ 20,885.98 (later temporarily reduced to ₹ 10,000 with the balance payable in instalments). Defendant No.1 did not pay and so, the Board filed the suit. 4. The defendant, while admitting that he had joined the plaintiffBoard on certain terms due to unemployment, contended that the bond he signed was a printed, onesided and unstamped document, and therefore, inadmissible in evidence. He stated that he later secured a Central Government job under the Ministry of Power and Energy and resigned from the plaintiffBoard effective 01.03.1989. Relying on a Ministry of Home Affairs letter dated 14.11.1984, he pleaded that service bonds executed in Public Sector Undertakings can be transferred to Central or State Governments, or other public enterprises. Consequently, the bond he had executed should be treated as transferred to the Central Government, where he had joined, and he would remain bound by it there. On this basis, he sought dismissal of the suit. 5. Findings of Courts below : The courts below dismissed the suit holding that the Board, being a Statecontrolled statutory body, could not enforce the bond against a person, who left to join Central Government service, having regard to Government O.M.s and the accepted administrative position that bonds are not to be enforced, where a Government servant moves to another Government/QuasiGovernment/ PSU and that a fresh bond should be taken by the new employer, if required. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court relied on Ministry/DoPT guidance and associated case law. 6. By way of this appeal, the Board challenges the above concurrent conclusions. Page 2 of 7 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on 03122025 06:43:04 ::: RSA23201998 2025:PHHC:167559 7. Issues : The short issues, which arise for decision in this appeal are: (i) Whether the Board can enforce the bond executed by defendant No.1 who resigned to join Central Government service; and (ii) If enforceability is disputed, whether the administrative circulars / O.M.s relied upon by the courts below (and relevant judicial decisions applying those O.M.s) operate to oust the contractual right of the Board to recover training cost and interest. 8. Analysis by this court: Administrative instructions issued by the Central Government (MHA / DoPT / BP