2008 (9) SCC 15
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Priyankan Sharan and Anr. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5539 OF 2008 With CIVIL APPEAL No. 5540 of 2008
Decided on : September 8,2008
Employment And Service - Removed from service liability - Whether respondents prayer for discharge of bond executed to serve nation for a period of five years on ground of medical disability has been rightly accepted by High Court - Appellant sought to invoke bond agreement executed - Two respondents in Civil Appeal arising out of and the respondents in other Civil Appeal arising out of SLP had taken admission to MBBS Degree Course of Armed Forces Medical College - At time of admission they being minors their guardians had executed bonds to effect that after completion of MBBS course students in question shall serve the nation by working in the Armed Force for a specific period of time – Held, it is no reason when the words of a law do enough extend to an inconvenience seldom happening that they should not extend to it as well as if it happened more frequently, because it happens but seldom - A casus omissus ought not to be created by interpretation save in some case of strong necessity - Where however a casus omissus does really occur either through the inadvertence of the legislature or on principle quod proetereunt legislators rule is that the particular case thus left unprovoked for must be disposed of according to the law as it existed before such statute - Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. - Leave granted.
2. The core question is whether the respondents prayer for discharge of bond executed to serve the nation for a period of five years on the ground of medical disability has been rightly accepted by the High Court?
3. The High Court by the impugned order held that in each case the respondents were required to deposit of rupees one lakh and on such deposit there was no further liability.
4. Factual position is almost undisputed.
5. In each case the appellant sought to invoke the bond agreement executed. The two respondents in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 580 of 2005 and the respondents in other Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 25514/2004 had taken admission to the MBBS Degree Course of Armed Forces Medical College, Pune. At the time of admission they being minors their guardians had executed the bonds to the effect that after completion of MBBS course, the students in question shall serve the nation by working in the Armed Force for a specific period of time.
6. Clause 4 of the agreement dealt with a situation when a cadet shall be declared to have become Non Service Liability (in short `NSL) in the event of any of the three categories. It is provided that in such event Clauses 5 and 6 will be applicable. However, he or she can be permitted at the discretion of DGAFMS to continue her studies on payment of normal tuition fee at the rate in force at the time but the students have to move out of the hostel premises.
7. Clause 5 of the agreement states that in the event of a student being removed from the service liability for any reason, shall be liable to pay the amount calculated at a particular rate per annum from the date of admission to the College till the date of NSL subject to maximum together with interest on the said amount at rates in force then.
8. Clause 6 provided that student who is removed from service liability under Clause 4(a) shall be required to pay in cash an amount calculated at the rate of rupees one and a half lakh per year or part thereof from the date of admission to the college till the date of becoming a NSL limited to maximum of seven and half lakh together with interest calculated on the same basis stated in Clause 5.
9. This was the position in 1999. The High Court in each case observed that the candidate was suffering from ailment and was removed from service liability. After removal the present appellants tried to enforce the bonds on the purported ground of failure on the part of the cadet to serve the nation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the bond. In appeal relating to Kiran Kumar and Another, the High Court in the impugned judgment in paras 3 and 4 noted that in the earlier cases orders were passed that on payment of rupees one lakh when the bond amount was rupees three lakhs, there shall be total liquidation of liability on the bond.
10 According to learned counsel for the appellants till 1998 the bond amount which covered the cost of free education, ration and other facility during the entire period of four and a half years was rupees three lakhs. The bond amount was revised w.e.f. July, 1999. Guidelines were also issued on 18.2.2002 for deciding the cases relating to waiver of bond money in respect of medical cadet declared NSL on medical grounds. It is not in dispute that in each case the cadet was declared NSL. Thereafter, the appellants were of the view that cadets were required to pay the bond money as demanded.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-cadet in each case submitted that the proviso of Clause 4(a) has been lost sight of by the appellants while raising the demand. Relevant clauses 4, 5 and 6 read as follows:
"4. The medical cadet will be declared to have become Non Service Liability in the event of any of the following:
(a) Being rendered medically unfit for commission due to any disease/disability detected at any time during the course or prior to commissioning; or
(b) Failing in attendance bel
Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Popular Trading Company, Ujjain
Kerala State Housing Board and Ors. v. Ramapriya Hotels (P)Ltd. and Ors.
Stock v. Frank Jones (Tiptan) Ltd.
Ali M.K. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. M/s Price Waterhouse and Anr.
State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel and Anr.
Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umarji v. State of Gujarat
Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v. Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha
Jamma Masjid, Mercara v. Kodimaniandra Deviah and Ors.
Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta
R.Venkatchalam and Ors. etc. v. Dy. Transport Commissioner and Ors.etc.
Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama
A.N. Sehgal and Ors. v. Raje Ram Sheoram and Ors.
Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.