Rajasthan High Court Quashes Bond Recovery Demand From Contractual Nurse | Direction For Deposit Of Bond Amount Is Bad In The Eyes Of Law And Cannot Be Upheld
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Rekha Borana quashed a departmental order demanding enforcement of a Rs. 5 lakh bond against a contractual employee appointed under earlier recruitment rules. The court held that the petitioner, now appointed afresh under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, could no longer be governed by the terms of the previous bond. Consequently, the directive requiring compliance with the earlier bond terms was declared unlawful, and the court restrained authorities from taking any coercive action on its basis.
The petitioner was initially engaged as a Community Health Officer in the year 2021 on a contractual basis pursuant to an advertisement dated 31.08.2020. As per the terms of her appointment, she was required to submit a bond amounting to ₹5,00,000, binding her to serve for five years post-training. If she resigned before completing the five-year period, the bond obligated her to deposit the specified sum.
Subsequently, in 2022, the State of Rajasthan introduced the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022. Following the enactment of these Rules, the petitioner was reappointed on 26.04.2023 as a Community Health Officer for a term extending up to 07.05.2028, under the revised terms and conditions specified in the new Rules.
The petitioner later secured another position as a Nursing Officer through a recruitment process initiated by an advertisement dated 05.05.2023. Upon selection, she resigned from her earlier post. In response, departmental authorities issued a communication dated 15.01.2025 and a subsequent order on 22.01.2025, invoking the 2021 bond and directing her to pay ₹5,00,000 as a condition for being relieved from service.
The petitioner challenged these orders through a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, contending that her appointment in 2023 was entirely governed by the 2022 Rules and the new contractual terms, which did not include any provision for bond submission or enforcement.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the 2022 Rules, under which the fresh appointment was made, superseded the prior arrangement. Since neither the Rules of 2022 nor the new appointment letter mandated the execution of a bond, any attempt to enforce the earlier bond was baseless and legally untenable.
The respondent-State, represented by its counsel, submitted that the petitioner had already availed the benefit of government-funded training under the earlier appointment. They argued that enforcing the bond was necessary to prevent financial loss to the State, particularly when contractual appointees resign prematurely after receiving specialized training.
In support of their stance, the respondents referred to a judgment delivered in Manisha Devi Meena v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 385/2021), where enforcement of bond conditions was upheld. They asserted that similar principles applied to the present case.
However, the petitioner countered that her case differed materially, since her reappointment under a new regulatory framework rendered the earlier contractual obligations ineffective.
The Court recorded that: “The condition as prescribed in advertisement dated 31.08.2020 shall no more govern the present petitioner once she had been afforded appointment vide a fresh appointment order in terms of Rules of 2022.”
It further stated: “Once an incumbent has been afforded appointment vide a fresh appointment order, she would definitely be governed by the said order and the Rules governing the said appointment.”
Addressing the absence of any bond-related clauses in the 2022 Rules and new appointment order, the Court observed: “Had the intent of the State been to ensure the compliance of the bonds as furnished by the incumbents in terms of the advertisement in the year 2020, definitely a specific condition to the said effect would have been incorporated in the Rules of 2022.”
The judgment added: “Even the order of appointment dated 26.04.2023 which otherwise lays down the specific conditions of appointment, does not specify any such condition of a bond.”
The Court emphasized that the efficacy of the original bond ceased with the issuance of the new appointment under a fresh regulatory framework. It recorded: “Even if there was any condition in the earlier advertisement dated 31.08.2020, the same effectively lost its efficacy after the petitioner having been afforded a fresh appointment by virtue of a fresh appointment order.”
On the issue of whether the petitioner’s transition to a different post within the State apparatus justified enforcement of the bond, the Court held: “She would now also be working with the State Government only. Meaning thereby, the skills as gained by her during the training as imparted during her contractual employment, shall now be used in her job as a ‘Nursing Officer’ with the State Government.”
It further added: “It is incomprehensible as to how can it be termed to be a financial loss to the State Government when an employee who had been imparted training for some particular contractual job, continues to serve the State Government although, on regular basis.”
Referring to the enforcement demand, the Court concluded:“The demand for deposit of the bond amount proves out to be irrational and illogical on this count too. By all means, the direction of the State Authorities for deposit of the bond amount is bad in the eyes of law and the same cannot be upheld.”
Regarding the judgment in Manisha Devi, the Court stated: “The ratio of the same would not apply to the present matter, the same being clearly distinguishable.”
The Court explained the distinction as follows: “Condition of the advertisement itself lost its existence/efficacy by virtue of the fresh appointment order and therefore, the said condition would not govern the present petitioner.”
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
The communication dated 15.01.2025 and the subsequent order dated 22.01.2025 are quashed and set aside. The respondents shall not pressurize the petitioner to comply with the bond dated 18.09.2021. No punitive action shall be taken against her for not complying with the said bond. The Court declared that the said bond condition, originating from the 2020 advertisement, no longer held legal force following the petitioner's reappointment under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022. The petitioner’s current employment as a Nursing Officer with the State shall not be disrupted by the earlier bond requirements.
All pending applications, including the stay petition, were disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Firoda, Mr. Jayram Saran, Mr. Nikhil Bishnoi
For the Respondents: Mr. Tanuj Jain for Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC
Case Title: Leela Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:20894
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7728/2025
Bench: Justice Rekha Borana
[Read/Download order]
