Delhi HC: Petitioner Liable To Refund Expenses For Training As Per Bond

The Delhi High Court, on July 25, observed that the Government was entitled to recover from the petitioner, a former BSF officer, the amount it had incurred on his training, in case he did not resume duty as per the terms of the bond signed. 

Facts

The case pertained to a BSF officer who had opted for Post Graduate Diploma in Public Policy and Management (PGDPPM) at MDI, Gurgaon for the academic year 2009-11, which had been offered by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.

The petitioner completed all the formalities and underwent training in India as well as overseas. 

Upon his return, he had to complete dissertation which he could not as he was required to join a hard posting in Jammu and Kashmir. He wrote letter in which he requested for a posting in Delhi but it was declined.

Thereafter, he took voluntary retirement. Upon his retirement, vide an office order, he was informed that the expenditure incurred on his training would be recovered from his entitlements. 

The instant petition was filed to pray for a mandamus to direct the respondents to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner.

Contentions

Senior Advocate Narender Hooda appeared for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner could not complete the dissertation due to the fault of the respondents as he was sent to a hard posting therefore the amount was not recoverable.

However, central government standing counsel, Advocate Apoorv Kurup stated that as per the terms of the bond signed by the petitioner, he was supposed to resume his duty on failure of which the expenses incurred on his PGDPPM was to be recovered.

Decision

The Court observed that, “we are not convinced with the plea of the petitioner that due to hard posting he could not complete his dissertation in view of the fact that despite being a person of prudent knowledge and holding an imperative designation, he did not write even once for extension of time to write the dissertation, whereas he had all the time to un-authoritatively communicate with the University of USA on travel and visa issues, which is purely an administrative decision.”

It was further stated that, “Hence, the petitioner cannot be absolved of his liability to pay the Government all charges and expenses, which were incurred on account of his training such as pay and allowances, leave salary, cost of fee of travelling and other expenses, cost of international travel and cost of training abroad etc., as per rules.”

The respondents were held entitled to recover the amount incurred on training programme.