` 130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Manpreet Saini Bank of Baroda CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA CM-1867-LPA Delay of 3 days in satisfactorily explained. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed and delay of 3 days in re LPA-747-2026 1. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant after noticing that the bond was voluntarily executed by the appellant before she was sent abroad on overseas duty, which categorically provided that on return she shall work at le respondent – bank. 2. The appellant did execute a bond for such purposes voluntarily. It is admitted that on return from overseas duty, the appellant has worked for two months only and thereafter left the job. The learned Si IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-747 Date of Decision: Manpreet Saini Vs. Bank of Baroda HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the *** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) LPA-2026 Delay of 3 days in re-filing the satisfactorily explained. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed and delay re-filing the appeal, is condoned. 2026 (O&M) Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant after noticing that the bond was voluntarily executed by the appellant before she was sent abroad on overseas duty, which categorically provided that on return she shall work at le bank. The appellant did execute a bond for such purposes voluntarily. It is admitted that on return from overseas duty, the appellant has worked for two months only and thereafter left the job. The learned Si IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 747-2026 (O&M) ate of Decision: 22.05.2026 …Appellant …Respondent ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA ROHIT KAPOOR Advocate for the appellant. filing the accompanying appeal, has been In that view of the matter, the application is allowed and delay filing the appeal, is condoned. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant after noticing that the bond was voluntarily executed by the appellant before she was sent abroad on overseas duty, which categorically provided that on return she shall work at least for three years with the The appellant did execute a bond for such purposes voluntarily. It is admitted that on return from overseas duty, the appellant has worked for two months only and thereafter left the job. The learned Single Judge, accompanying appeal, has been In that view of the matter, the application is allowed and delay Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant after noticing that the bond was voluntarily executed by the appellant before she was sent abroad on overseas duty, which categorically ast for three years with the The appellant did execute a bond for such purposes voluntarily. It is admitted that on return from overseas duty, the appellant has worked for ngle Judge, RAJESH KUMAR 2026.05.30 12:51 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. LPA-747-2026 (O&M) [2] therefore, has found that there has been a breach of undertaking given by the appellant in the bond. 3. Learned Single Judge, therefore, has found no exception to the action of the respondent – bank in effecting such recovery. 4. Though various submissions are advanced but we neither find any illegality on facts nor in law with respect to the action of the respondents – bank which persuaded us to interfere in the matter. 5. Learned counsel submits that as per the policy only Rs.10 Lakh could have been demanded. Undisputedly, the bond was executed by the appellant without any demur to pay Rs.20 Lakh in case of default. Having executed the bond with open eyes, now the appellant cannot go back and challenge the same on the pretext of contrary policy. 6. Learned Single Judge has found it to be violative of principles of approbation and reprobation. 7. On merits, we find no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that one of the aspects pressed before the learned Single Judge was the unauthorized demand of GST on the amount of bond of Rs.20 Lakh. This aspect has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. 9. We are not clear as to whether such argument was advanced or not. 10. In the event such argument was advanced and has not been dealt with, the appropriate remedy for the appellant would be to approach the learned Single Judge by filing a review application to such extent. RAJESH KUMAR 2026.05.30 12:51 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. LPA-747-2026 (O&M) [3] 11. In such circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeals fails and is dismissed accordingly. 12. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 22.05.2026 rajesh . Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.05.30 12:51 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.