Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK AFR W.P(C) NO. 1477 OF 2024 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------------- Dr. Susanta Kumar Patra ..… Petitioner -Versus- Union of India & Ors. ….. Opp. Parties For petitioner : Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate along with M/s. G.M. Rarh & L. Pradhan, Advocates For opp. parties : Mr. P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General of India P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R.SARANGI AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN DECIDED ON : 31.01.2024 DR. B.R. SARANGI, ACJ. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dated 20.12.2023 passed in O.A. No.133 of 2023 under Annexure-1, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack // 2 // Bench, Cuttack, while dismissing the said O.A., has observed that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount of bond, which was executed by him with the opposite party-authority before availing study leave for pursuing DNB Training of Super Speciality in Neurosurgery. The petitioner also seeks to quash the orders dated 06.10.2022 and 02.11.2022 under Annexure-12 series passed by opposite party no.4. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner, while working as Sr. Medical Officer (ME 2) (Surgery) had informed opposite party no.3, vide application dated 16.10.2015, that he was going to appear in the DNB (CETSS Exam). Thereafter, he was selected by the National Board of Examination and assigned to the Apollo Hospital, Bhubaneswar to undertake the study of DNB training of Super Speciality in Neuro Surgery. On 18.02.2016, he submitted application to opposite party no.3 for grant of study leave to pursue DNB Neurosurgery at Apollo Hospital as a direct candidate (unsponsored), wherein he had // 3 // mentioned that he will pursue the 3 year course at his own expense and requested to relieve him by 20.02.2016. While dealing with his application for study leave, the Senior Deputy Director (MED) on 18.02.2016 recommended for grant of study leave and nowhere it is indicated to have sponsored the petitioner by the RSP (SAIL). There is a provision for execution of an agreement in respect of candidates, who are sponsored for prosecuting higher studies or specialized training, but the petitioner was asked to execute a bond, as per requirement of candidate even though he was neither a sponsored candidate nor he had applied for any financial benefit during course of higher study. The petitioner, being an employee, jointly executed the bond on 26.04.2016 with one Dr. Manoranjan Samantaray to bind themselves. After execution of bond, the opposite parties, vide office order dated 27.04.2016, granted study leave w.e.f 26.04.2016 to 25.04.2019. After completing his course, the petitioner submitted his rejoining application dated 23.2.2019 to join in the post and thereafter, due to personal reasons submitted application // 4 // dated 03.08.2022 for resignation from job giving three months time for necessary action on his application, as per rules and regulations of the company. 2.1. The opposite parties, vide order dated 06.10.2022, intimated the petitioner to deposit Rs. 11,15,291/- to process the resignation, which includes an amount of Rs. 1,89,587/- more than the bond amount of Rs. 9,25,704/-. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted representation dated 25.10.2022 stating that he is not at all liable to pay such bond dues and also the further amount, as a condition for acceptance of his resignation since he was not a sponsored employee of the company, but he did so by his own efforts. But, opposite party no.4, vide letter dated 02.11.2022 rejected his representation reiterating the earlier stand and also intimated that in case of failure in depositing the amount, they are not in a position to process his resignation and release him from the services of the company. // 5 // 2.2. The petitioner submitted his reply to opposite party no.5 regarding submission of the locker keys and disposal of admitted neuro surgical patients. Consequentially, he approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 31183/2022 and this Court, vide order dated 28.11.2022, admitted the said case and issued notices and passed interim order directing that no coercive measures be taken against the petitioner. On being noticed, the opposite parties filed their counter affidavit in WP (C) No. 31183/2022, wherein the question of jurisdiction was raised contending that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is amenable before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. Accordingly, the said writ petition was disposed of for adjudication by the Tribunal. 2.3. The opposite parties in their counter, inter alia, stated that the petitioner was granted study leave for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 26.04.2016 to 25.04.2019 to undertake DNB super speciality course in neurosurgery in Apollo Hospital, Bhubaneswar and before proceeding, // 6 // he executed a bond on 26.04.2016 in terms of policy of SAIL, wherein at clause 10.1, it is stipulated that the executives, who are granted study leave or who are sponsored for prosecuting higher studies shall, before proceeding on leave for the course, have to execute a bond to serve the company for minimum stipulated year of service or in default, pay the Company an amount in lieu thereof so that the company's efforts and resources on the development of individual executives are properly utilized. On the basis of the bond, the petitioner was allowed to avail all benefits like retaining the accommodation of the company at subsidized rate, medical facilities for dependants and self during the study leave period for three years. As per the scheme details of bond period and amount for different types of sponsorship has been indicated at Clause 10.4 and as per sub clause-E of Clause 10.4 which provides special cases of more than 2 years and up to 3 years without financial assistance the bond period would be 6 years and the bond amount was stated to be Rs. 80,000/- at the relevant time, which was amended during 2011-12 // 7 // which provides that bond amount would be equivalent to 1 year salary. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 9,25,704/- as one year salary and the residual amount of Rs. 1,89,587/- towards the salary paid to him for the month of November, 2022 and the petitioner had joined in duty after 02.11.2022, but was paid salary for the entire month of November, 2022, for which he was asked to deposit the said amount of Rs. 1,89,587/- along with the bond money. The study leave period was taken into consideration for promotion to the post of Specialist in Grade E 3 w.e.f. 12.03.2019 and was further promoted to the post of Senior Consultant in Grade E 4 level w.e.f. 30.06.2022. Since the petitioner failed to serve the company for a period of 6 years after completion of the study leave, he was asked to deposit the aforesaid amount and the said action is as per company policy/scheme and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the OA. 2.4. Pursuant to notice issued by the Tribunal, the opposite parties entered appearance and filed their reply // 8 // justifying their claim stating that after joining back in RSP in February 2019, the entire amount of house rent, electricity bill of Rs.3162/- and Rs.19,307.64/- have been deducted form his salary in the month of March 2019. Subsequently, Rs. 93/- as house rent, Rs. 5,532/- as electricity charges and Rs. 2,467.74/- as water bill were deduced from his salary in April 2019. It is further stated that the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions of the bond and thereby, he is liable to pay, as he has not rendered six years of service after getting higher qualification. Therefore, it is stated that the prayer made by the petitioner in the O.A. cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that so far as the term and conditions stipulated in the bond is concerned, there is no dispute. But fact remains, the petitioner had prosecuted his study at his own expense and now direction given for recovery of the amount cannot be sustained in the eye of law. More so, it is // 9 // contended that this Court should entertain the writ petition and exercise equitable principle so as to extend the benefit to the petitioner against the demand raised by the opposite parties. He has relied upon the judgment in Association of Medical Super Specialty Aspirants and Residents & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (8) SCC 607, wherein the apex Court while validating the action of the authorities in stipulating such conditions of minimum service, has been pleased to observe in paragraph-19 of the said judgment, which reads as follows: “…..However, we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the doctors that the period of compulsory service and the exist should be reasonable…..” Therefore, it is contended that even though the petitioner has not rendered six years of service after completion of his study leave, issuance of direction for recovery of the amount cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 4. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the opposite party-Union of India contended that since the matter is between the // 10 // petitioner and the SAIL and the conditions mentioned in the bond, the Union of India has no role to play. 5. This Court heard Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. G.M. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the opposite party-Union of India in hybrid mode. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that there is no dispute before this Court that the petitioner was granted study leave for a period of three years w.e.f. 26.04.2016 to 25.04.2019 to undertake DNB super speciality course in neurosurgery in Apollo Hospital, Bhubaneswar by executing a bond with the opposite party-authorities in terms of the // 11 // Scheme/Policy of SAIL. The relevant provisions of the Scheme are extracted below: “SCHEME FOR SPONSORING EXECUTIVES HIGHER SPECIALISED EDUCATION/TRAINING TRIBUNAL 1.0 OBJECTIVE: To enhance the managerial and professional abilities of executives and make use of special in for courses available recognised institutions of eminence. institutes and that purpose 2.0 SCOPE/COVERAGE: The scheme will be applicable to all levels of executives for recognised professional courses only. The courses covered would be in the following areas:- i) General management programme. ii) Special programmes in the areas of engineering and technology or other functional disciplines. iii) executives. Specialisation for medical courses 3.0 TYPES OF SPONSORSHIP: Sponsorship may be allowed as indicated below:- Individual Initiative i) courses Part-time/correspondence where absence from duty is not required for pursuing the course. ii) Leave for prosecuting higher studies or for specialised training in India or abroad on the basis of scholarship or fellowship received by the employee or otherwise. iii) financial commitment (stipend/grant) from the Company with own study leave as at (ii) above. iv) commitment and paid leave by the Company. Sponsorship with Sponsorship with financial limited full // 12 // Company Initiative v) Sponsorship by the Company for special courses/training in India or abroad based on Company’s needs and succession/career plan. XXXXXXX 8.0 GRANT ASSISTANCE ON SPONSORSHIP: OF LEAVE/FINANCIAL 8.1 For part-time/correspondence courses, no financial assistance shall be given by the Company. For normal study leave, executive may 8.2 be granted leave up to 2 years/up to 3 years in case of medical stream (and in other streams as special cases up to 3 years with the approval of Chairman) which shall consist of Half-pay Leave/Commuted Leave, at credit and the uncovered period as EOL. In general, no financial assistance shall be given. Earned leave, all XXXXXXXX 10.0 BOND/GUARANTEE/BOND PERIOD: 10.1 The executives who are granted study leave or who are sponsored for prosecuting higher studies shall, before proceeding on leave for the course, have to execute a bond to serve the Company for minimum stipulated the years of service or Company an amount in lieu thereof as given in para 10.4, so that the Company’s efforts and resources on the development of individual executives are properly utilized. in default, pay for 10.2 For any type of full sponsorship with salary/benefit the country/abroad, the individual executive shall have bank guarantee/guarantee equivalent to the bond money. appropriate course give in to // 13 // 10.3 An employee who is under a bond to serve the Company for a stipulated period shall not be eligible for the study leave during the currency of the bond. 10.5 In case of a medical executive, granted part sponsorship for pursuing DM/M.Ch 3 years degree course, leaving the organization during the course or before the completion of bond period, he shall have to refund the entire amount so incurred as cost by the company for the sponsorship in one lump sum.” From the aforesaid provisions, it is made clear that as per clause-10.1 of the scheme, since the petitioner was granted study leave, he executed the bond and if he is resigning before the bond period he has to pay the amount. But, the petitioner has relied upon clause 10.5 of the scheme which states that even though no cost was incurred by the company on the petitioner for pursuing the course since he was given the benefit of retaining the house at company’s rate and other medical facilities, his case is of part sponsorship and he is liable to pay the amounts only. 7. As per clause-8.2 of the scheme, for normal study leave, the executives are granted leave up to 3 years in case of medical stream, which consists of all // 14 // earned leave, half pay leave/commuted leave at credit and the uncovered leave period as EOL and no financial assistance shall be given. As per clause-10.1, the executives, who are granted study leave or who are sponsored for prosecuting higher studies shall before proceeding on leave for the course, have to execute a bond to serve the company for minimum stipulated years of service or in default, pay the company an amount in lieu thereof as given in para 10.4, so that the company’s efforts and resources on the development of individual executives are properly utilized. It is also stated in clause 10.4€(i) that those who are going on own study leave without any financial assistance has to execute bond for six years and the bond amount has been specified which was revised subsequently. 8. In view of such position, the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions stipulated in the bond. Needless to say, if the authority allowed the petitioner to go for higher study with a stipulation that he will render service for a period of six years after // 15 // acquisition of the higher qualification, non-compliance thereof definitely causes hardship to the company. Thereby, there is gross violation of terms and conditions stipulated in the bond. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 9. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is willing to refund the house rent dues and other admissible dues to the authority to the tune of Rs.1,89,587/-, but he claims for waiver of the demand of Rs.9,25,704/-. Since the petitioner has undergone DNB super speciality course in neurosurgery in Apollo Hospital, Bhubaneswar by executing a bond with the opposite party-authorities in terms of the Scheme/Policy of SAIL, he is bound by the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Therefore, waiver of the demanded amount in exercise of equity jurisdiction of the Court may not be proper. // 16 // 10. In the result, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.133 of 2023 so as to cause interference of this Court at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed. However, under the facts and circumstances of the case,
Decision
there shall be no order as to costs. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN, J. I agree. (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 31st January, 2024, Alok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: A.R-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 02-Feb-2024 16:49:58