Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1635 (KER)

Devadas S/o. Kumaran v. Kochi Metro Rail Limited

2025-06-10

HARISANKAR V.MENON

body2025
JUDGMENT : HARISANKAR V. MENON, J. The petitioner, who joined the service of the 1 st respondent herein with effect from 22.08.2016 as a Maintainer (Electrical), points out that he had executed a bond assuring that he would serve the 1 st respondent for a minimum period of three years after joining the service, as above. The petitioner states that, later, he got an employment with the Kerala Public Works Department (PWD) under the State of Kerala and therefore resigned from the service of the 1 st respondent on the basis of an advice memo received from the Kerala Public Service Commission on 14.09.2017. Thus, the petitioner admits that he had not put in service for the bond period with the 1 st respondent herein. 2. The petitioner, in such circumstances, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking a direction to the 1 st respondent not to enforce the bond amount in the afore circumstances. 3. I have heard Sri.P.Jayaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent herein. 4. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner had executed a bond with the 1 st respondent herein, as noticed earlier. The petitioner was to serve the 1 st respondent for the bond period of three years. It is even before the expiry of the bond period, as above, that the petitioner sought appointment from the PWD and was advised for such appointment by the PSC, as noticed earlier. In such circumstances, the question arises as to the method to be adopted by the petitioner, since he has already executed a bond. The method to be adopted is laid down in Ext.P9 Office Memorandum dated 14.11.1984. In paragraph 5 of the Office Memorandum, it has been categorically laid down that when an employee like the petitioner herein seeks employment from a State Government/Central Government and is appointed, he has to get relieved from the parent organisation “with proper permission” and also obtain a fresh bond for the remaining period from the new employer. In the case at hand, applying the afore principle, it was for the petitioner to have obtained a fresh bond from the PWD, as laid down in Ext.P9. In the case at hand, applying the afore principle, it was for the petitioner to have obtained a fresh bond from the PWD, as laid down in Ext.P9. However, in spite of the 1 st respondent pointing out about the requirement as above in Exts.P8 communication dated 13.12.2017, the petitioner has not chosen to obtain a fresh bond from the PWD. 5. On the face of the afore, this Court notices the fact that the petitioner has served with the PWD till 2022, is not in dispute. The petitioner states that, subsequent to 2022, the petitioner is presently working with the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), a State Government undertaking. When that be so, I am of the opinion that the service put in by the petitioner in PWD as well as in KSEB, also needs to be reckoned as service with reference to Clause 5 of Ext.P9 Office Memorandum. 6. This Court also takes notice of the fact that the petitioner has not impleaded the State of Kerala in this writ petition. Therefore, “the State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001”, is suo motu impleaded as additional 4 th respondent. 7. This Court also notices the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Hemant Tyagi v. UCO Bank and Others [2018 SCC OnLine Del 11702] , relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the afore judgment may not fully help the petitioner insofar as, in that case, the employer had not required the execution of a bond from the new employer whereas, in the case at hand, the 1 st respondent required the petitioner to obtain a fresh bond as seen from Ext.P8 communication. 8. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the PWD pointing out the period during which the petitioner has worked with the afore Government Department, as also pointing out the requirement to obtain a fresh bond, as laid down in paragraph 5 of Ext.P9 Office Memorandum within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If such a representation is being filed by the petitioner the PWD will sympathetically consider the afore request of the petitioner also taking note of the fact that he has put in service till 2022 and is presently employed with the KSEB and execute necessary bond, as stipulated in Ext.P9 Office Memorandum, within a further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. On the basis of the bond to be issued by the PWD, the Kochi Metro Rail Limited, to close the files of the petitioner. With the afore observations, this writ petition would stand disposed of.