Remanded

Sujith Kumar T. v. Vs Union of India

Kerala HC14 Jan 2021WP(C)/28629/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner's request for a sympathetic waiver of training cost recovery due to his resignation to take a job with another entity, instead of automatically ordering a refund.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach 2nd Respondent with detailed representation for waiver of recovery; Respondent to consider and pass orders within two months.

Sujith Kumar T. v. Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.28629 OF 2020(C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUJITH KUMAR T. V.

¶8

AGED 42 YEARS

¶9

S/O. SHRI KRISHNANKUTTY T. V., THANDAN VEETTIL HOUSE, PERUMPARAMBA P. O., EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA - 679 576.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.K.P.S.SURESH SMT.REENA SHARON SURESH

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 UNION OF INDIA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOI, MINISTRY OF HOME

¶15

AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶16

2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CISF

¶17

O/O. THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL - CISF HQ, BLOCK NO.13, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003.

¶18

3 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, PARISAR NO.553, EAST KOLKOTA TOWNSHIP, KASABA, KOLKOTTA - 700 107.

¶19

4 THE DY. COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, CASO, AVIATION SECURITY GROUP, RANCHI - 834 002.

¶20

5 THE ADDL. DIRECTOR NCC DIRECTORATE (K AND L), STATE WING - KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010. (FORMAL IN NATURE)

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

GP BIJOY CHANDRAN AND ASG P .VIJAYAKUMAR

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

WP(C).No.28629 OF 2020(C)

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶28

“(a) To order the respondents refund the cost of training collected from the petitioner, ie. Rs.146227/- along with interest.

¶29

(b) To direct the respondents 2 and 3 to make necessary entry into the Service Book of the petitioner about past service for requirement benefits under intimation to the (formal) respondent R4.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned ASGI appearing for the respondents.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed as Clerk in the office of the Additional Director, NCC – Kerala and Lakshadweep. It is submitted that prior to such appointment he was working as Sub-Inspector under the 3^rd respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner's resignation has been accepted on condition that he deposits training cost of Rs.1,46,227/- to the CISF. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has resigned only to take up the

¶32

WP(C).No.28629 OF 2020(C)

¶33

¶34

appointment with the 5^th respondent and therefore, the direction to refund the training cost is unjustifiable. It is submitted that Ext.P8 representation has been submitted before the 2^nd respondent, which is liable to be considered in accordance with law.

¶35

The learned ASGI appearing for the respondents submits that Ext.P8 representation has not been forwarded through appropriate channel and that it has not been received by the competent authority as well.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner has resigned from the service of the CISF only for taking up appointment with the 5^th respondent, the request made by him for waiving of the recovery of training cost is liable to be considered by the 2^nd respondent sympathetically.

¶37

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that in case the petitioner approaches the 2^nd respondent with a detailed representation with regard to waiving the recovery of the training cost, the same shall be considered appropriately by

¶38

¶39

WP(C).No.28629 OF 2020(C)

¶40

the 2^nd respondent in accordance with law. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the representation before the 2^nd respondent for compliance. The 2^nd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a representation along with a copy of this judgment.

¶41

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

Bng/14.01.2021

WP(C).No.28629 OF 2020(C)

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DISCHARGE BOOK IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT - P1 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF CISF OFFER NO.E14099/RTC/CISF/7TH (B) SI/EXE (ESM)/TRG./18/1953 DATED 09.01.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDERS OF DIGCISF VIDE ORDER NO.LETTER NO.E16015/CISF/AP(E&NE)/RESIG.CORRS/ADM.3/201 9-1958 DATED 25.03.2019. EXHIBIT P3 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.E31014/CISF/R/ADMIN/RESIGNATION/2019/1042 DATED 28.03.2019 FROM DY. COMMANDANT AIRPORT RANCHI UNIT OF CISF. EXHIBIT P3 (b) TRUE COPY OF GAR 8, PAYMENT OF RS. 146227/EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST OF KERALA PSC DATED 20.02.2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF STATE PSC ISSUED ADVICE MEMO FOR APPOINTMENT VIDE LETTER NO.MR I(1) 678/14 DATED 30.01.2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.883/A2-EST/2018/NCC DATED 15.02.2019, THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL, NCC, NCC DIRECTORATE (K AND L), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF DIG-CISF-RTC LETTER NO.E37035/RTC(A)/TRG./INTIMATION/2018-6502 DATED 27.05.2018. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 05.04.2019 FOR REFUND.

Sujith Kumar T. v. Vs Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujith Kumar T. v. Vs Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayanan C. Vs the Executive Committee of Kerala Agricultural University

Juju P. George Vs the Addl Chief Secretary Finance (Rules)

P.D.Sanjeevkumar Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Geetha P Vs the Kerala Agricultural University

T.P.Alias Vs the Managing Director of Kerala Water Authority

Ansar C.P. Vs Kerala Agricultural University (Kau)