Allowed

A. Ravi Kumar, Mahaboobnagar District v. a.P.S.R.T.C., Hyd and 2OTS

Telangana HC11 Apr 2023WP/3244/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court upheld a petition challenging a final notice demanding refund of training stipend from an employee who resigned. The Court held that the action was arbitrary as similarly situated employees were allowed to resign without repayment, violating Article 14.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned Final Notice for recovery of amount is set aside; there shall be no order as to costs.

A. Ravi Kumar, Mahaboobnagar District Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3244 OF 2010

¶7

Between:

¶8

A. Ravi Kumar, S/o. Narayana, aged about 36 years, Occ: Govt. Service,^Rl./o. H.No.3-1 27, Laxminarsimha Colony, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Vice-Chairman & lV.D. having Office at Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Director, Transport Academy, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hakimpet, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Principal, Transport Academy, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hakimpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Educational Officer, Mahaboob Nagar District, Mahaboob Nagar.

¶15

(R-4 is impleaded as per the Court Order dt. 11 10412023 in l.A No.1 of 2013 (WPMP. 10994 of 2013 )

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents^{in issuing the Final} Notice No. P11692(11)102-T.A. dated 09-9-2008, for^{recovery of} amount^{is illegal,} arbitrary & contrary to the terms of the GO Ms.No. 268,^{Financeand Planning} (F.W.P.R.-l) Department, dated 08-9-1980, apart from being violative of Article 14 of Contitution of lndia and consequentially direct the Respondents not to^insistthe conditions of the bond executed by the^petitioner at the time of^{his appointment}

¶18

--7

¶19

as Traffic Supervisor Trainee and return the original certificales of Educational qualification to the petitioner.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP. NO: 4263 OF 2010)

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of recovery Proceedings in respect of the Final Notice No. P11692(11)102T.A., dated 09-09-2008, issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

l.A. No; 2 !QE20!0{WPMP. No:4264 oF 2010)

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents to return the original Certificates of Educational Qualification to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition^-

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶25

Petition under Section^'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim stay until further orders which was granted earlier on 3-3-2010 in W.P.M.P.No.4263 of 2010 in W.P.No.3244 of 2010.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS ALENUR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, S.C. FOR TSRTC

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Gp FOR EDUChTION

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEA. ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO .3244 of^2OLO

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition,^{under Article226 of the Constitution of} India, is filed^{challenging the Final Notice dated 09 09'2008} issued by l-he respondent^{Corporation wherebyan amount o[} Rs.47 ,213 I -^{was soughtto be recovered from the petitioner by} the respondent^CorPoration.

¶35

2l Heard the learned^{counsel for the petitioner and Sli} Thoom Srinivas,^{learned Standing Counselfor the respondent} Corporation.

¶36

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner has stated that the} petitioner rvas selected to^{the posl.of Traffic Supervisor Trainee} and underwent training^{at the TransportAcademy,APSRTC,} Hakeempet, Secunderabad,^{from August,2001, to August,} 2OO2. At the time^{of joining the services, the petitionerwas} made to execute an^{IndemnityBond in favour of the Corporation} and as per the said^{IndemnityBondthe petitioner was obligated} to serve the Corporation^{for aperiod of five years after} cornpletion of the training^{period. It is further stated that} during the training^period, the^{pet.itionerhad received stipend} amount of Rs.41,527/-. Thereafter, in^{the month of October,} '

¶37

¶38

2OO2, the petitioner tendcrcd his resignation to the post of Trafhc Super-visor Trainee zrs he was selected for the post of School Assistant (Maths) through District Selection Committee (DSC) 2002, Mahabubnagar District. That the authority concerned instead of acceptir-rg the resignation has directed the petitioner to rr:fund the amount of Rs.47,2131- towards stipend and EPF amolrnt making it a condition precedent for accepting the resignation. Learned counsel has contended that issuance of the impugned notice is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.26g, Finance & Planning (F.W PR. i) Dcpartmcnt, dated 08.09.1980. Learned counsel has further stated rhat as per the said G.O., if any employee leaves the servjcc of any Enterprise and joins the scrvice of C<:ntral Gove ntrncnt/ State Government, euasiGovernment organization or any other public Enterprise, they have to give a l-resh bond to lhe new employer and need not pay the amount spent by them on their training or received as stipend. Therefore, prayed tl-ris Hon,ble Court to ailow the present writ petition.

¶39

4l Per contra, the learncd Standing Counsel appearing on behall ol thrr rlspondenI Corporation has vchemcntly opposed the very maintzrinability ol thc Writ petition and has stated that the Corporation is only secking the petitioner to get back the

¶40

¶41

amounts which were spent by the Corporation for the training of the petitioner as per the Indemnity Bond executed by the petitioner. That the petitioner having executed an Indemnity Bond is obligated to refund the amount which he has received as stipend and the costs incurred during training period. Learned Standing Counsel has stated that G.O.Ms.No.268 dated 08.09.1980 relied by the petitioner is not applicable to the present case as the Corporation has never adopted the said G"O. and therefore, the learned Standing Counsel prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶42

On 03.03.2O10 while admitting the Writ Petition, this Court has granted interim stay of recovery of the amount from the petitioner and the same is subsisting till date.

¶43

As seen from the record, the petitioner has executed an IndemnilSr bond in favour of the respondent Corporation wherein it is stated that the petitioner has to serve the Corporation for a period of hve years (60 months) after completion of the training period and in case the employee wants to leave the Corporation he/ she is liable to refund the amount of the bond arrived at as a sum total of stipend paid, cost on training and employer's contribution towards Provident Fund proportionately based upon the number of months of

t !i ;, I

service completed after training. When the petitioner wanted to resign from the services of the Corporation in the month of October, 2OO2, the Corporation authorities have directed the petitioner to refund an amount of Rs.47,2131-, which include Rs.4l ,527 I - towards stipend and Rs.5,686/ - torvards EPF contribution amount, for accepting the resignation and issued the frnal notice, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition.

¶48

Admittedly, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.26B dated 08.09.1980 whereirr it is stated that in case employees want 1.o leave any of the Undertakings partially owned by the State Government or Central Government and^join the serwices of Centlal Government, State Government, Quasi^{Government or Public Enterprise,thenthe1, 61i, haveto} execute a bond for the remaining period and they need not pay the amounts which were incurred for their training and stipend.

¶49

Even though the learned Standing Counsel has stated that G.O.Ms.No.26B dated 08.09.1980 has not been adopted by the respondent Corporation and therefore the said benelit is not applicable to the petitioner herein, however, a perusal of the material on record, more particularly, the resignations tendered by the similarly situated persons as tliat the petitioner were accepted by the respondent Corooration without insisting for

¶50

¶51

payment of the sum spent on training and stipend. Aiong with the writ petition, the petitioner had submitted a list of the employees whose resignations were accepted by the Corporation duly waiving off the bond amount partially/ totally, as the case may be. However, no counter has been fiIed by the Corporation denying the same. Absolutely, there is reason as to why the petitioner alone should be discriminated. Moreover, it is been more than 13 years the writ petition has been admitted and interim stay of recovery of amount has been granted.

¶52

In HSIDC v. HARI OM ENTERPRISESI, the Hon'ble

¶53

Supreme Court at para 31 held as under:-

¶54

"lt may be true that ordinarily in a matter of enforcement of a contract qua contract, a writ Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of t}re Constitution of India. But, it is also trite that where the action of State is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as being wholly unfair and unreasonable, the writ Court would not hesitate to grant relief in favour of a person, where both law and equity demand that such relief should be granted."

¶55

In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee

¶56

Corpn. of India Ltd.2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 28

¶57

hcld as under:

¶58

"However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of t}:.e I lzooo; ro scc 2o8 ' lzoo+1^{z scc ss3}

¶59

¶60

¶61

Constitution of India, thc Corrrt should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prcrogative writs under Article 226 of^the Constitution is plenary in nalure and is not limited^by any^other provisions of the Constitutio:t. The High Court having regard^to the facts of the casc. has :t discretion to entertain or not^to entertain a writ petition.^'l'hc Court has^{imposeduponitself} certain restrictions in th.' excrcise of this^{power.Andthis} plenary right of the High Oourt to issue a^{prerogative writ will not} normallS, bc exercised b] lirc Court^{to the exclusion of other} available remedies unlcss such^{action of theState orits} instrumentality is arbitran^{and unreasonableso as to violate the} constitutiorlal mandatc ol^{Articlc 14 or for other valid and} legitimate reasons, for^rvi.tich the Court^{thinksitnecessaryto} exercise thc said^{jurisdictr,,r .'}

¶62

In this particulai casc^also the^{respondent Corporation} has not insisted for repayrnenl.^{of the amountsspentfor training} or stipend paid to similarly^{situatedpersons beforeaccepting} their resignation. Thcreforc,^{the contention of the respondent} Corporation that G.O.Ms.No.268^{dated 08.09.1980has not been} adopted is not correct.^{'l'he benelrt givenby the Government} under G.O.Ms.No.268 datccl^08.09. i980^{should also be} extended to the petitioner^{$'ithout any discrimination.}

¶63

For the zrfore-sta ted reasons^arrd in^{view of the law laid} dorvn by the Honl:le Supreme Court in^{the abovereferred} judgments, this Court is ol thc opinion that the impugned order has to be set aside and lhc Writ Petition be allowed.

¶64

¶65

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶66

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if

¶67

any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs

¶68

That Rule Nisi has been absolute^{as above.Witness the Hon'ble the Chief} Justice SRI UJJAL BHUYAN, on this^{Tuesday, The Eleventh Day of April,} Two Thousand and Twenty Three.

¶69

SD/- P. PADMANABHA REODY ASSTSTANT REGTyTRAR //TRUE COPY// w SECTION OFFICER

¶70

To,

¶71