Bond Cannot Be Resurrected At Retirement To Justify What Rules Do Not Permit: Delhi High Court Quashes Recovery From Retired DU Teacher’s Pension Dues
The Court held that the College had no authority to revive a condition deleted from Study Leave Rules in 1979, noted that the recovery of over Rs. 25 lakh from pension dues was without authority of law under Article 300A, directed refund with 6% interest.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a term of a bond which is contrary to the Rules governing the very leave under which the bond is executed cannot be enforced. The Court observed that a College has no authority to revive, by way of a bond, a condition that the Executive Council had consciously removed from the Rules, and that the bond cannot be resurrected at the stage of retirement to justify what the Rules do not permit.
Quashing the withdrawal of increments, the re-fixation of pay and the recoveries made from the retiral benefits of a retired Delhi University college teacher who did not complete his Ph.D. during study leave, the Court held that the recoveries were without authority of law. It directed refund of the recovered amounts with simple interest at 6% per annum.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “The deletion of the condition, and the direction to amend the Study Leave Bond accordingly, were made more than four years before the Petitioner's Study Leave Bond was executed. The College had no authority to revive, by way of a bond, a condition that the Executive Council had consciously removed from the Rules…The Study Leave Bond cannot be resurrected at the stage of retirement to justify what the Rules do not permit”.
“…The College had no authority to revive, by way of a bond, a condition that the Executive Council had consciously removed from the Rules. The Petitioner's signature on a bond in a format which the College was itself bound to have amended cannot confer validity on such a condition. A term of a bond which is contrary to the Rules governing the very leave under which the bond is executed cannot be enforced.”, the Bench said
Advocate Ravindra S. Garia appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Mohinder Rupal appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, a Lecturer at Swami Shraddhanand College since 1971, was granted study leave from September 14, 1983, to September 13, 1986, for his Ph.D. and executed a Study Leave Bond. He did not submit his thesis, rejoined duty, served about twenty-five years, and retired on November 30, 2011. Shortly before retirement, the University’s Pension Cell directed that he not be given notional increments for the leave period if his studies were incomplete. After retirement, his pay was re-fixed from 1983, and Rs. 25,75,750.75 was recovered from his retiral benefits.
His earlier petition seeking permission to submit the thesis was dismissed in 2014. He then challenged the recoveries, amended with liberty to also challenge the Bond. Another petition challenged the University’s Circulars of February 9, 2012, and October 19, 2012.
The Court noted that the Study Leave Rules, 1979 deleted, with effect from July 19, 1977, the clause making non-completion of studies a ground for refund. The petitioner had neither failed to rejoin nor left service early, so none of the retained grounds applied. Clause 2 of the Bond reproduced the deleted condition. Since the petitioner’s service terms made leave subject to University Leave Rules in force, the College could not add conditions of its own.
The Court noted that the University had taken this position for other teachers and had never invoked the Bond during his service. Even on its terms, the Bond permitted recovery only of salary, about Rs. 98,860, and not withdrawal of increments or recovery of provident fund contributions.
Treating pension as property under Article 300A, the Court found that the only recovery provision, Clause 14 of Appendix ‘A’ to Statute 28-A, requires a finding of grave misconduct or negligence and bars proceedings on events more than four years old. It added that recovery from a retired employee would be impermissible in any event under State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih.
The Court allowed the writ, quashed the impugned communications, re-fixation, and recoveries, and held Clause 2 unenforceable against the petitioner. It directed restoration of pay actually drawn, re-computation of pension and arrears from December 1, 2011, and refund of Rs. 11,40,537 and Rs. 14,35,213.75, with the differential, at 6% simple interest from December 1, 2011, within sixteen weeks. It was disposed of without opining on the Circulars.
Cause Title: Vinod Kumar Khurana v. University of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8995)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Ravindra S. Garia and Shashank Singh, Advocates, with Petitioner in person.
Respondent: Mohinder Rupal, Hardik Rupal, Aishwarya Malhotra and Tripta Sharma, Advocates.