Service Bonds Cant Create Any Right To Employment: Delhi HC Upholds Dismissal Of Dentist’s Plea Against Alteration Of Tenure Of Service By ESIC
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of the ESIC’s dentist’s petition against the unilateral alteration of tenure of service while observing that service bonds do not and cannot create any right to employment.
The Court dismissed the petitions filed by dentists who at the time of joining the Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course in the Employees State Insurance Corporation Dental College and Hospital, Delhi (ESIC) had submitted their individual service bonds in favour of the ESIC. The petition was filed to challenge the ESIC's unilateral decision to reduce their service bond tenure from five or three years to one year.
A Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, “That being so, we are of the clear view interalia that the said bonds do not and cannot create any right to employment in the petitioners. The petitioners having already enjoyed benefit in the form of expenses incurred by the ESIC on their education, grant of right to employment in them on the basis of the said bonds would be granting them double benefit, which is nowhere contemplated in the said bonds or justified in any manner.”
Advocate Gautam Narayan appeared for the petitioners, while Senior Panel Counsel Mimansak Bhardwaj represented the respondents.
The service bond's original stipulation that graduates would serve ESIC for either five or three years was later revised by ESIC by reducing the service period to one year. The same was communicated to the petitioners.
After completion of their BDS course, none of the petitioners were called upon by the ESIC to render services nor any of the petitioners approached the ESIC for the said purpose. Later in 2023, the ESIC called upon the petitioners to render their services in terms with the revised bonds for a period of one year. In pursuance of the said communication, the petitioners joined the service of the ESIC.
The petitioners argued that the bond created a binding contractual right to employment for the full five or three years, as per the original terms.
The High Court had to determine whether the service bonds can be read in a manner as to create a right to employment in the petitioners.
The Court stated that the salient features of the service bonds executed by the petitioners was that it was a unilateral document executed by the petitioners and their respective sureties.
“The salient features of the said service bond, as reflected from the above extract are that…the said bonds even implicitly, what to say of explicitly, do not stipulate any duty on the part of the ESIC to avail or to seek services from the executors thereof, much less to provide services to the executors; and that as is obvious, unlike in the case of the executors, the said bonds do not stipulate or even contemplate any consequence, monetary or otherwise befalling the ESIC in case services of the executors are not availed of,” the Court remarked.
The Bench held that the service bonds do not and cannot create any right to employment in the petitioners. “Merely because at a subsequent stage the ESIC opted to reduce the service period from five/three years to one year, it cannot be read to their detriment, much less to the benefit of the petitioners in the form of creation of right to employment under the ESIC,” the Bench observed.
The Court stated that ESIC had a complete discretion to avail services of the bond executors for any period depending upon the requirement, though that period could not be more than the period of five/three years contemplated in the said bonds.
Consequently, the Court stated, “The petitioners themselves have always been conscious that the said bonds do not create right to employment in their favour. That is the reason why none of them claimed or even sought employment from the ESIC immediately after completion of their respective course.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petitions.
Cause Title: Dr Ankit Sharma & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6942-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Gautam Narayan, Asmita Singh and Taha Yasin
Respondents: Senior Panel Counsel Mimansak Bhardwaj; GP Chetan Jadon; St. Counsel Shlok Chandra; Advocates Sunny Chhoankar, Pradeed Baisoya, Vidya Mishra, Harsh Vardhan Singh Rajawat, Shivangi Rajawat, Sankalp Sharma and Sushant Pandey
