ORDER :

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since all the writ petitions involve common question of law and arise out of the similar orders passed by the respondents, therefore, they are being heard and decided by this common judgment.

3. The present writ petitions have been filed against the orders passed by the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioners for accepting their resignation.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Commercial Assistant-II in the respondent-department in the year 2019. The terms and conditions of the appointment order contain a Clause that if the probationer trainees are not desirous to continue the service with the respondents for a period exceeding two years and if they tender resignation, then they will have to refund the expenses incurred by the respondents on their training etc. The petitioners were also supposed to refund the entire amount of remuneration/salary subject to the entire amount to the maximum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Since the petitioners tendered their resignation within a period of two years from the date of joining, therefore, the respondents have issued letters for the recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- for accepting their resignation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that such condition is onerous and they cannot be compelled to pay this amount. He submits that the writ petitions may kindly be allowed and their resignation may be accepted without pressing for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the terms and conditions of the offer letter of appointment itself, it is very clear that in case, the petitioners are not desirous of continuing with the services of the respondents, then the expenses incurred in the training etc. shall have to be refunded with the upper ceiling of Rs.1,50,000/- and since the petitioners had received the emoluments more than 1,50,000/-, therefore, the respondents have rightly issued the letter of payment for refund of Rs.1,50,000/- upon the petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions presumed by the petitioners may be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 304/2021 Manisha Devi v. Jaipur Vidyuat Nigam Limited & Anr. decided on 16.04.2021 wherein the Division Bench has held that the condition imposed on a candidate for submission of a bond is required to adhere to as the same has been accepted by the petitioners at the time of securing the job and, therefore, the petitioners are liable to pay the amount in terms of the bond furnished by them to the respondents.

8. I have considered the submission made at the Bar and gone through the pleadings.

9. The petitioners have joined the respondent-department in pursuance of the appointment orders issued in their favour in the year 2019 on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. For brevity, the condition No.6 is reproduced as under:-

"6. At the time of joining duties, the above probationer Trainees, shall have to execute a Bond (proforma enclosed as Appendix-A) on Non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.500/- issued in the name of candidate with the specific purpose of executing bond in favour of JDVVNL, for giving an undertaking that he/she will not leave his/her training/service or resign or take-up another employment during the period of Probation-Training as well as within one year after completion of Probation-Training, and also during any other training period as well as after completion of such training within a minimum period of 1 year if such trai