Per D.N. Patel, J.-The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for quashing the direction issued by respondent no. 2 dated 1st January, 2002, whereby, the respondents have directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 1,46,380/-, as the petitioner has resigned from Central Reserve Police Force in February, 2001. This demand has been made under Rule 17 -A of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (in short "the Rules, 1955" for the sake of brevity)

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued out the case, in much detail and mainly submitted that the petitioner had joined the Central Reserve Police Force with effect from 1st December. 1994.

3. The terms of appointment have already been referred in the letter of appointment given to the petitioner, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of petition, which refers the fact that if the petitioner resigns within three years on completion of training, the petitioner will have to make payment of three months' pay and allowances or the actual cost of training, whichever is less. The petitioner has served for more than six years and, therefore, as per the terms of appointment, the petitioner is liable to make payment of three months' pay and allowances, because that amount is lesser than the actual cost of training.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph no.4 (iii) of the appointment letter, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of petition. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that amendment has been brought in the Rules, 1955. The added rule is Rule 17-A, which has been brought into force after joining the services of the petitioner. Therefore, the same is not applicable to the petitioner, but, it is applicable to the new comers in the services. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 17-A does not prescribe any period and, therefore, a clarification has been issued by the respondents, which is at Annexure-7/1 of the memo of petition. As per the clarification, issued by the Central Government, after ten years of regular services if any member of Central Reserve Police Force seeks discharge or seeks resignation, then he will not be liable to refund the pay and allowances of three months or the cost of training. But, this clarification is de hors the Rules, because under Rule 17-A of the Rules, 1955, there is no such limit of ten years. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are several persons, who have resigned after three years and they have been allowed to resign without making any payment of three months' pay and allowances or the cost of training. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in fact, as per Rule 16 of the Rules, 1955, the petitioner is not liable to make payment, because the petitioner has already served for six years and he is a confirmed employee.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who has submitted that in view of Rule 16 to be read with Rule 17 -A of the Rules, 1955 to be read with clarification, issued by the Central Government, the petitioner is liable to make payment of actual cost of training. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the resignation tendered by the petitioner was later on withdrawn, which was not accepted by the respondents and thus, the application for resignation was also rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present petitioner had joined the services of Central Reserve Police Force with effect from 1st December, 1994. The terms of appointment, particularly Clauses 4(iii) and 4(v), as referred in the appointment letter dated 11th November, 1994, reads as under:

"4. The other terms of appointment will be as follows:-

xxx xxx xxx

(iii) You will have to undergo a prescribed course of training