AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.S. Liberhan, C.J.—The sole contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the State cannot enforce the bond executed by the appellant in terms of G.O. Ms. No.268 dated 8-9-1990, by which the State Government has made the Central Government Order No. 15-4-1966 applicable to the employees of the State by adoption of the said G.O. The order of the Central Government reads as under:
"The undersigned is directed to refer to . para 4 of the Ministry''s OM. No.70(1)/ 60-Ests, dated the 9th May, 1960 according to which terms of bond (which Government servants receiving scientific or technical training at Government expense have to execute undertaking to repay the money in the event of their failure to serve Government for a specified number of years after completion of their training) are to be enforced only against these Government servants who leave Government service in order to secure private employment. It has now been decided in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, that while the terms of the bond referred to above may not be enforced as at present, in the case of Government servants who leave Government service to secure employment under a State Government, a Public Sector Undertaking owned wholly or partly by the Central Government or by a State Government Undertaking/Organisation for a period of three to five years, the exact period being determined in each case by the Ministry/ Department taking into the amount spent by them (Ministry/Department) as their training".
The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that from a reading of the aforesaid order, it is discernible that if a Government servant leaves Government service and secures employment under a State Government or a Public Sector Undertaking owned wholly or partly by either the Central Government or the State Government, the bond executed by the concerned employee cannot be enforced.
We have gone through the order and read it along with the learned Counsel for the appellant. We find no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. No such inference can be raised that the said order debars the Government from enforcing the bond or that the Government has given up its claim under the bond for an employee who has left the Government employment in order to take a job under the State owned Public Sector Undertaking or Central Government owned public sector undertaking for ever, thus bringing an end to the relationship of master and servant between the State and its employee. The order provides a concession to the employees who have gone for a limited period i.e., three to five years to the Public Sector Undertakings and the exact period to be determined in each case where the bond is to be enforced or not has been left to the objective determination of the Department. Thus, in the clear meaning of the order, the Government has never surrendered its right to enforce the bond or given up its claim. Mere giving of concession would not debar the Government from enforcing the bond. In view of the observations made above, we find no force in the appeal and affirm the finding of the learned single Judge to the effect that the concession given is only to the employees who have gone out of the employment of the Government to Public Sector Undertakings for a period extending between three or five years and not leaving the job for ever. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.