Probationers are not required to serve a notice period upon resignation, distinguishing them from regular employees, thereby entitling them to refund payments made under coercion.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against the impugned judgement/ order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4617/2020 titled "Paras Khuttan Vs. Gail India Ltd & Anr.".

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant before this Court applied in pursuant to the advertisement issued by Gas Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as GAIL), and was finally offered an appointment vide letter dated 30.07.2019 to the post of Manager (Law).

3. The Appellant joined as Manager Law on 13.12.2019. While he was on probation, he resigned from the post of Manager (Law). He submitted his resignation on 15.01.2020 from the post of Manager Law requesting the employer to relieve him on or before 22.01.2020. The Respondent employer sent an E-mail on 23.01.2020 and the Appellant was directed to serve three months' notice or three months' pay in lieu of such notice.

4. The Appellant with quite promptitude submitted a reply to the E-mail on 27.01.2020 stating that he is a probationer, and in respect of a probationer, the issue of giving three months' prior notice or pay in lieu of three months' notice does not arise, and he again made a request for relieving him on 17.02.2020.

5. The Appellant on 03.02.2020 again requested the Authorities to relieve him and to re-consider the requirement of serving three months' notice as he was a probationer. However, the employer vide letter dated 05.02.2020 informed the Appellant that the resignation of the Appellant had been accepted with effect from 17.02.2020. However, his request for waiving the notice period was turned down.

6. The Appellant vide E-mail dated 06.02.2020 was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,74,253/- i.e. three months pay in lieu of the notice period.

7. The Appellant left with no other choice as he wanted to leave the Organization, deposited Rs. 1,74,253/- on 07.02.2020 and the same was informed to the Authorities. He was relieved on 07.02.2020.

8. The Appellant has further stated that on 23.03.2020, a nationwide lockdown was declared by the Government of India, and, therefore, on account of lockdown he was not able to protest in time. However, he submitted a representation to the Chairman & Managing Director of GAIL on 27.05.2020 to refund the sum of Rs. 1,74,253/-.

9. The DGM (HR-ES) rejected the representation/ appeal of the Appellant vide order dated 03.07.2020 and in those circumstances a Writ Petition was preferred before this Court i.e. W.P.(C) No. 4617/20200 titled Paras Khuttan Vs. Gail India Ltd & Anr. The Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition.

10. The contention of the Appellant before this Court is that he was working as a probationer, and in absence of rules/ laws in respect of probationer to give three months notice or to pay salary in lieu of notice, the forced recovery of Rs. 1,74,253/- is bad in law and he is entitled for refund.

11. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Medha Moitra V Union of India & Ors, MANU/WB/2399/2019, and his contention is that in a similar circumstances, the Calcutta High Court has allowed the Writ Petition. The reliance has also been placed upon the judgement delivered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Nitin Gupta Vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, 2007(2) SCC 434. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently arg