High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 01 KL CK 0348

Sujith Kumar T.V vs Union Of India And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 14 January 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anu Sivaraman, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 28629 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 406 words
1.

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) To order the respondents refund the cost of training collected from the petitioner, ie. Rs.146227/- along with interest.

(b) To direct the respondents 2 and 3 to make necessary entry into the Service Book of the petitioner about past service for requirement benefits

under intimation to the (formal) respondent R4.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned ASGI appearing for the respondents.

3.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed as Clerk in the office of the Additional Director, NCC

â€" Kerala and Lakshadweep. It is submitted that prior to such appointment he was working as Sub-Inspector under the 3rd respondent. It is

submitted that the petitioner's resignation has been accepted on condition that he deposits training cost of Rs.1,46,227/- to the CISF. The contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has resigned only to take up the appointment with the 5th respondent and therefore, the direction to

refund the training cost is unjustifiable. It is submitted that Ext.P8 representation has been submitted before the 2nd respondent, which is liable to be

considered in accordance with law.

4.

The learned ASGI appearing for the respondents submits that Ext.P8 representation has not been forwarded through appropriate channel and that it

has not been received by the competent authority as well.

5.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner has resigned from the service of the CISF

only for taking up appointment with the 5th respondent, the request made by him for waiving of the recovery of training cost is liable to be considered

by the 2nd respondent sympathetically.

6.

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that in case the petitioner approaches the 2nd respondent with a detailed representation with

regard to waiving the recovery of the training cost, the same shall be considered appropriately by the 2nd respondent in accordance with law. The

petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the representation before the 2nd respondent for compliance. The 2nd respondent

shall consider the same and pass orders thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a representation along with a copy of this

judgment.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.