Dismissed

Manisha Devi Meena D/O Shri Shambhu Dayal Meena v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Rajasthan HC15 Mar 2021CW/385/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a demand for payment under a resignation bond executed while employed by JVVNL. The Single Judge held that since the petitioner resigned voluntarily without being forced to resign, the bond terms were not unfair, unjustified, or contrary to Section 74 of the Contract Act, distinguishing the case from Laxman Lal where reinstatement orders were involved.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

Manisha Devi Meena D/O Shri Shambhu Dayal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CW-385/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 385/2021

¶5

Manisha Devi Meena D/o Shri Shambhu Dayal Meena, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Nangal Susawtan, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Having Its Office At Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

¶9

Superintendent Engineer, Jaipur District Circle, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Having Its Office At Old Power House Compound, Bani Park, Jaipur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramit Pareek For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶13

Order

¶14

15/03/2021

¶15

The petitioner assails the order dated 03.12.2020 passed by the JVNNL demanding an amount of Rs.1,50,000 plus 18% GST of Rs.27,000/- total Rs. 1,77,000/- from the petitioner on account of resigning from service of the Corporation in terms of the bond executed by the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel submits that the surety bond executed by the petitioner is per-se contrary to Section 74 of the Contract Act.

¶17

Learned counsel has submitted that such a condition of payment of surety bond in case relating to PG Medical Regulations, 2000 was held to be unfair, unreasonable and

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-385/2021]

¶20

unjustified vide judgment passed in Laxman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in AIR 2018 (Raj.) 40 .

¶21

Learned counsel submits that view taken by this Court earlier

¶22

in case of Gunjan Dhankar & ors. Vs. JVVNL & Ors .:SBCWP NO.11933/2020, decided vide order dated 13.10.2020 does not take notice of the said judgment.

¶23

I have considered the submissions.

¶24

The terms and conditions of appointment order have not been challenged by the petitioner and after having executed the bond in favour of petitioner, it cannot turn around and challenge the same after resigning from service. Apparently, condition nos.6 and 7 of the appointment order clearly postulate that the petitioner worked with the JVVNL for a period of three years and if she resigns, she will have to pay either the amount paid to her by way of salary or a fixed amount of Rs.1,50,000/- whichever is less. It is not the case where the petitioner had been forced to resign. In such circumstances, the conditions cannot be said to be unfair or unjustified.

¶25

So far as the law laid down by the Division Bench in Laxman Lal (supra), this Court finds that in Dr. Priya Verma & 7 Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., the Division Bench of this court has considered the provisions of Section 74 and had dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Single Bench. The said judgment reported in 2011 (4) WLC 640 has not been considered in the subsequent judgment of Laxman Lal (supra). The judgment passed by this Court in Gunjan Dhankar & Ors. (supra), therefore will have full application to the present case of the petitioner.

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-385/2021]

¶28

Accordingly the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶30

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶31

Pcg/67