Restrictive covenants in employment contracts requiring a minimum service period or payment of liquidated damages in case of early resignation are legally valid, enforceable, and do not constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade or violation of public policy in public sector employment.

- 1 -

WP No. 6072 of 2018

Reserved on : 04.02.2026

Pronounced on : 05.06.2026

WRIT PETITION No. 6072 OF 2018 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES,
HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES, HOSUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 029. …PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRABHAKAR RAO K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MR. JEFFIN P. THANKACHAN, AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O. MR. V. THANKACHAN, STAFF NURSE,
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRIC NURSING, THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES,

- 2 -

WP No. 6072 of 2018

HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A VISHWANATHA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M. NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.170/00227/2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 4.12.2017 BY ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT AND ETC,.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

C.A.V. ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Vishwanatha Bhat, learned counsel for Sri M. Nagarajan, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The respondent in O.A. No.170/00227/2017 is before this Court impugning the order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short “the Tribunal”).

- 3 -

WP No. 6072 of 2018

3. The brief facts are that the petitioner-institution invited applications for the post of Staff Nurse. The respondent was found suitable and was appointed by appointment letter dated 16.09.2015. The appointment letter imposed certain conditions, including the minimum period of service to be rendered in the institution. The respondent, having accepted the terms and conditions, joined the petitioner-institution as Staff Nurse.

3.1 Thereafter, the respondent submitted resignation on 03.04.2017, which was accepted subject to payment of Rs.3,00,000/-. In terms of Clause 8 of the Memorandum dated 16.09.2025, the respondent paid the said amount, got relieved from service, and joined another employment.

3.2 Subsequently, the respondent filed an application before the Tribunal seeking refund of the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- paid towards the bond amount. The Tribunal, under the impugned order, directed refund of the said amount along with interest.

4. Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the application before the Tribunal was in the nature of recovery proceedings and, therefore, not maintainable under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is submitted that the respondent, having accepted

- 4 -

WP No. 6072 of 2018

the conditions imposed in the appointment order, joined service pursuant to the order of appointment.

4.1 It is further submitted that when the respondent tendered resignation before expiry of the minimum period stipulated under Clause 8 of the Memorandum dated 16.09.2025, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and got relieved from service. Thereafter, upon joining employment in another institution, the respondent filed the application before the Tribunal seeking refund of the said amount.

4.2 It is further submitted that the Tribunal, without considering that imposition of such condition was permissible and that viol