DR. ANIL BAJAJversusPOST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2002 INSC 36
- Decided
- 21 January 2002
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The principle of estoppel applies, preventing the employee from challenging the condition that his lien expired, and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
Dr. Anil Bajaj, a faculty member of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, was granted permission to take up an assignment abroad on the condition that he would resume duty within two years, a condition that required an undertaking which he did not furnish. An office order stipulated that failure to return would automatically terminate his lien and deem him to have permanently left the Institute. Dr. Bajaj did not return until after 1998 and his request for an extension in 1997 was rejected; he subsequently filed a writ petition challenging his termination, which the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the principle of estoppel barred Dr. Bajaj from contesting the condition that his lien had expired, as he had already received the advantage of the sanction to go abroad. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the termination of his service.
Issues considered
- Whether the employee can challenge the automatic expiry of his lien despite having availed the sanction to work abroad without furnishing the required undertaking.
- Whether the principle of estoppel applies to prevent the employee from contesting the condition of return within two years.
Subjects
Judgment
DR. ANIL BAJAJ A
V.
POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
_,°i' AND RESEARCH AND ANR.
JANUARY 21, 2002
B
[B.N. KIRPAL, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.]
Service law :
~ ' Lien-Employee of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and c
Research-Granted permission to proceed for employment abroad-Guidelines
required an undertaking by the employee that he will resume duty within a
period of two years-Office order according sanction states that in case
appellant fails to resume duty his lien would automatically expire and he
would be deemed to have permanently left the Institute-Employee not resuming D
duty as undertaken by him-His request for extension was rejected-Writ
petition by employee challenging his termination dismissed by High Court-
Held, the principle of estoppel would apply to the case-A person who gets
an advantage under a condition cannot turn around and challenge the said
condition-High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition-Estoppel.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 608 of
2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.99 of the Punjab and Haryana
~ High Court in C. W.P. No. 13570 of 1999).
~
F
R.L. Batta, S.K. Puri, U]wal Banerjee, Ms. Anindita Gupta and H.K.
Puri for the Appellant.
D.S. Nehra, Ms. Shobha, Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Anu Mehta and S.K. Mehta,
for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co. for the Respondents.
G
"
.. The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Special leave granted.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no
H
375
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) I S.C.R.
A relief can be granted to the appellant. It is quite evident that as per the
guidelines the petitioner was allowed to proceed for employment abroad. The
guidelines r~quired an undertaking to be furnished to the effect that he will
resume duty within a period of two years. It is stated by the learned senior
counsel for the appellant that no such undertaking was furnished. Be that as
it may, there is an order dated 13th January, 1995, on the record, which
B grants sanction to the appellant to take up the assignment in Oman. This
appears to be an ex-post facto sanction as the appellant had proceeded for a
period of two years with effect from 27th September, 1994. Para 2 of this
office order according sanction states that in case the appellant fails to resume
duty at Chandigarh his lien will automatically expire and he shall be deemed
C to have permanently left the institute from the original date.
It is an admitted fact that the appellant did not come back till after
1998. It is also an admitted fact that his request for extension was rejected
specifically in 1997. This being the position the principle of estoppel, apart
from anything else, would clearly be applicable in a case like this. A person
D who gets an advantage, namely, of a sanction to go abroad on service on the
condition that he will come back within two years and if he does not come
back, his lien will automatically be regarded as being terminated he then
cannot turn around and challenge the said condition on the basis of which
sanction to go abroad was granted. Of course, if there is a dispute with regard
E to the question whether he had in fact come back within the stipulated period
or an extension had been specifically granted an inquiry may be necessary
but where the facts are not in dispute the inquiry would be an empty formality.
In any case principle of estoppel would clearly apply and the High Court was
right in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant wherein he had
challenged his termination.
F
The appeal is, accordingly, dis\Jlissed.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.