SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 781

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJESH KHANNA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent



HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ****

Rajesh Khanna ... Petitioner VS.

Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents ****

1. Judgment reserved on 12.12.2025 2. Judgment pronounced on 29.01.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 30.01.2026

4. Whether operative or full judgment Full 5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any NA ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Karanvir Singh Kathuria, Sr.Panel Counsel, UOI ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to charge Rs.30,000/- only as bond money as has been done in case of similarly situated persons in the same cadre, working on inter- transferrable posts having common seniority list with the petitioner in the same pay scale and under same employer. A further prayer has been made to refund the amount beyond Rs.30,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.

(2). Brief facts are that the petitioner cleared the All India Entrance Test conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and was selected as member of the India Engineering Service along with Sumeet Goel and Sanjeev Kohli. Thereafter, the selectees along with the petitioner went for Induction Training Course in November/December, 1993 for a period of two months at New Delhi. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Station Engineer with the All India Radio (AIR) whereas the other two above mentioned selectees were appointed as such in Doordarshan, Jalandhar and New Delhi in the same cadre and on an inter-transferrable posts having common seniority list with same pay scale and common administrative control of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi.

(3). In 1996, the petitioner and Sumeet Goel sought admission for doing their postgraduate ME/M.Tech. Course in the IIS, Bangalore and IIT, Kanpur through proper channel. They executed a bond in May, 1996 (Annexures P1 & P2), in terms whereof, Sumeet Goel paid Rs.30,000/- being the entire cost of training while doing M.Tech/ME Course whereas no amount as paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner and Sumeet Goel went for postgraduate course where they were selected. The duration of the course undergone by them was one and a half year.

(4). The petitioner applied for a post of Assistant Professor (E&C) advertised in January, 1999 by Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology through proper channel and was selected after submitting his resignation on 28.05.1999. However, the same was not accepted by AIR, Jalandhar vide memorandum dated 18.06.1999 (Annexure P4) on the ground that bond liability executed by the petitioner at the time of attending the ME Course at IIS, Bangalore which was conveyed to him by the Director General, AIR on 17.06.1999, has not been completed. The petitioner initially paid Rs.30,000/- vide draft dated 23.06.1999 as the same amount has been deposited by his batchmates. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to pay the entire salary plus TA/DA etc. for a period of one and a half year which was quantified at Rs.2,20,970/- subsequently reduced to Rs.1,74,103/- after adjusting the amount due to the petitioner. The petitioner deposited the said amount under protest vide letter (Annexure P8). Thereafter, he made a representation dated 14.09.1999 (Annexure P9) against demand of bond money over and above Rs.30000/-, but the same has not been responded to. Hence this writ petition.

(5). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in demanding a sum of Rs. 1,74,103/– from the petitioner, as against a flat sum of Rs. 30,000/– from other similarly situated employees, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the petitioner and other employees of All India Radio (AIR) and Doordarshan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top