Manisha Devi Meena D/O Shri Shambhu Dayal Meena vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was devoid of merit and dismissed it. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had not challenged the terms and conditions of her appointment order prior to executing the bond and subsequently resigning. The conditions stipulated in the appointment order (specifically conditions 6 and 7) clearly outlined the financial implications of resignation, requiring payment of either the salary received or a fixed sum of Rs. 1,50,000, whichever was less. The Court found these conditions to be neither unfair nor unjustified, especially as there was no indication that the petitioner was forced to resign. Regarding the cited precedents, the Court noted that while Laxman Lal was mentioned, a Division Bench in Dr. Priya Verma & 7 Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2011 (4) WLC 640) had considered Section 74 of the Contract Act and upheld similar orders, and this judgment was not considered in Laxman Lal. Therefore, the Court found the judgment in Gunjan Dhankar & Ors. to be fully applicable to the present case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Manisha Devi Meena, challenged an order dated 03.12.2020 by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL) demanding Rs. 1,50,000 plus 18% GST (Rs. 27,000), totaling Rs. 1,77,000. This demand arose from the petitioner's resignation from service, in accordance with a bond she had executed. The petitioner argued that the surety bond was contrary to Section 74 of the Contract Act and cited a previous High Court judgment in Laxman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (AIR 2018 (Raj.) 40) which held similar conditions to be unfair and unreasonable. The petitioner also contended that a subsequent judgment in Gunjan Dhankar & ors. Vs. JVVNL & Ors. did not consider the Laxman Lal judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the surety bond executed by the petitioner, requiring payment upon resignation, is per se contrary to Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and thus unfair, unreasonable, and unjustified? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the surety bond is void as it contravenes Section 74 of the Contract Act. She relied on the Division Bench judgment in Laxman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (AIR 2018 (Raj.) 40), which purportedly held such conditions to be unfair, unreasonable, and unjustified. The petitioner further contended that a subsequent judgment in Gunjan Dhankar & ors. Vs. JVVNL & Ors. did not consider the precedent set in Laxman Lal. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents did not record specific arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the terms and conditions of the appointment order, including the bond, were not challenged by the petitioner prior to resignation. The Court also noted that conditions 6 and 7 of the appointment order clearly stipulated the consequences of resignation, including payment of salary or a fixed amount, whichever was less.