1986 PLP 1477 (MLD)

Given under our hand, this 16th day of March one thousand nine hundred and sixty‑three. (Sd.) 16/3 (Tasnimul Hassan) (Trainee) (Sd.) 16‑3‑1963. (M.A. Burney) (Surety). Trainee has been selected by the President for the Training Course in Personnel Management under the Technical Assistance Programme of I.L.O.‑Special Fund Project. Now the condition of above written bond is that if the Trainee shall return to Pakistan immediately after training and if the Trainee shall, if so required within six months of the successful completion of his training, serve the Central Government /Provincial Government in any post to which he rtiay be appointed for a minimum period of three to five years according to the needs of Government, then the above written bond shall be void and of no effect. Otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and virtue. Signed by the above bonded." From reading of the above bond it is quite clear that the appellants had agreed to pay on demand to the President of Pakistan the amount spent on the training of Appellant. No.l but not exceeding Rs.20,000 and the condition of the bond was that if the appellant No.l served for 3 years with the Government after completion of his training, the bond would become void. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that both the Courts below have held that no evidence was led on this issue and it was also not pressed by the appellant. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent does not appear to be correct. The point was specifically pressed before the First Appellate Court and was disposed of as follows: ‑ "The learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that the appellant has served for a period of about two years and the respondent cannot ask the appellants to pay the full amount of Rs. 20,

000. The learned Advocate has relied upon P L D 1969 SC

80. I have perused the Authority. This was a contract in which the money was paid which amount was later on forfeited on failure to perform contract. The facts of this case are different as that of the present case and are irrelevant. The learned Advocate has also relied on P L D 1967 Kar.

1. I have also perused the Authority and this was on the point from dismissed of service and servant was held entitled to damages. In my opinion this authority is also irrelevant as the facts of the present case are distinguishable. In the present case, the appellant No.l had executed a Bond that he would serve the Government for a period of three to five years after completing the successful training. The appellant No.l completed his training successfully and after return from the USA has served the Government for a two years According to the terms of the Agreement, the appellant No.l had to serve for a minimum period of three to five years. The appellant No.l has left the service and thereby made himself liable for this amount." The appellants have also raised this point specifically in this appeal. After reading the Bond it is quite clear that the sum of Rs.20,00 mentioned in the Bond is the maximum amount which could be recovery from the appellants and, therefore, the Courts below should have applied their mind whether in the circumstances of the case that the appellant had rendered service for 26 months out of the total period of 3‑ years the appellants were justified in forfeiting the entire amount of bond namely forfeiting the entire amount of bond namely Rs.20,

000. I accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Courts below and remand the case back to the trial Court for re‑determination of issue No.5 in the case. The trial Court may if it feels necessary allow parties to lead further evidence on this issue. The findings on all other issues are maintained. The amount deposite by the appellants in this appeal, if not invested so far will be invested forth with in some security and will be paid to be successful party is accordance with the final outcome of the litigation. A. A. Appeal allowed.