UNION OF INDIA Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by Union of India and two others challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "Tribunal), whereunder the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application filed by the present Respondent No,2 and directed refund of Rs.2,40,800/- with interest at the rate of 9% to Respondent No,2.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of such O.A.No,30 of 2005 and thereafter the present writ petition are recounted in a nutshell. THE present Respondent No,2, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, was appointed under Railways under Talent Scouting Scheme as he was an eminent Table Tennis player. He served Railways from 9.7.2001 to 8.7.2004. At the time of employment, a service bond has been executed stipulating a condition that he should serve the Railways for a period of three years. While the applicant was so serving, he was offered with better employment by Indian Oil Corporation (I.O.C.). At that time, when the applicant wanted to resign from the post and to be relieved, he was advised as per the Railway Board Letter R.B.E.No.120/85 dated 23.4.1985 to remit the salary for a period of three years as per the conditions of the bond executed by him at the time of his initial appointment. THEreafter, the applicant paid the said amount of Rs.2,40,800/- and was relieved from the Railways enabling him to join I.O.C. In the Original Application, the applicant claimed that he was forced to sign the service bond stipulating a condition that he would serve the Railways for a period of five years. It is stated by him "At the time of appointment the applicant was made to sign the printed service bonds with several blanks on it. Without understanding the legal implications and the consequences, the applicant signed the service bond and later on the officials filled up the blanks by themselves". It has been further stated that since the latter job offered by I.O.C. was at stake ". . . the applicant was forced to remit the entire amount demanded on 25.03.2003", representing three years salary of the applicant.

(3.) IT is of course true that in the bond no amount has been specifically indicated as the amount payable in case of default or infringement of the bond. As observed by the Supreme Court in AIR 1963 SC 1405 (cited supra), in case of default, a reasonable compensation not exceeding the penalty stipulated is payable. In a subsequent decision reported in AIR 2003 SC 2629 (Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., V. Saw Pipes Ltd.,) it was observed :-