In an important ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has clarified that once a fresh appointment letter is issued, the bond conditions of an earlier appointment cannot be enforced on the employee.
This decision was given by Justice Rekha Borana while hearing a writ petition filed by Leela Kumari, who was earlier appointed as a Community Health Officer (CHO) in 2021 on a contractual basis. As per the original contract, if she resigned before completing five years of service, she was required to pay a bond amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict on Parents’ Plea Against Expulsion of DPS Dwarka Students Over Fee Dispute
Later, under the new Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, she received a fresh appointment as a Nursing Officer in 2023, also for a period of five years. However, the State directed her to pay the bond amount for leaving the CHO position.
The petitioner argued that the 2023 appointment letter was a new and independent appointment, and therefore, the conditions attached to her earlier post should not apply. She stated that the earlier bond condition automatically ended when she was appointed under the new 2022 Rules.
In response, the State argued that the new appointment was only given because she was already serving as a CHO. The State also claimed that since she had received training during her CHO tenure, she was still bound to follow the conditions of her earlier appointment. The bond condition, they argued, was meant to protect the financial investment made by the State in the employee’s training.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Upholds Appointment of Prof. Naima Khatoon as First Woman Vice-Chancellor of AMU
But the Court rejected these arguments and ruled in favor of the petitioner.
“Herein, condition of the advertisement itself lost its existence/efficacy by virtue of the fresh appointment order and therefore, the said condition would not govern the present petitioner.”
The Court emphasized that the 2023 appointment did not mention any bond condition, and if it was the State’s intent to continue enforcing the bond, such a clause should have been clearly mentioned in the 2022 Rules.
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Cautions Litigant for Disrespectful Remarks Against Judges
“Had the intent of the State been to ensure the compliance of the bonds as furnished by the incumbents in terms of the advertisement in the year 2020, definitely a specific condition to the said effect would have been incorporated in the Rules of 2022. The same having not been incorporated, clarifies that it was never the intent of the legislature to enforce the said condition.”
Justice Borana also noted that the petitioner continued to work for the State government even in her new role as a Nursing Officer. Hence, the training she received was still being utilized, and the State had not suffered any financial loss.
Read also:- Rajasthan HC Raises Alarm Over 14 Suicides in 2025, Seeks Urgent Law for Coaching Institutes
“It could not be said that the State shall be bearing any financial loss on account of this new appointment of the petitioner.”
Based on these findings, the High Court concluded that the demand for bond recovery was unjustified and had no legal standing. The petition was allowed, and the order demanding recovery was quashed.
Title: Leela Kumari v State of Rajasthan & Ors.