2002 JTR(SC) 92
2002 AIR(SC) 2414 ; 2002 AIR(SCW) 2634 ; 2002 2 AllCJ 934 ; 2002 4 AllMR(SC) 248 ; 2002 1 CHN(SC) 136 ; 2002 1 CLR 923 ; 2002 1 JCR(SC) 447 ; 2002 1 JT 245 ; 2002 LIC 2320 ; 2002 2 LLJ 526 ; 2002 2 LLN 889 ; 2002 1 Scale 302 ; 2002 2 SCC 240 ; 2002 SCC(L&S) 289 ; 2002 1 SCR 375 ; 2002 1 SCT 971 ; 2002 2 SLJ 356 ; 2002 1 SLR 745 ; 2002 1 UPLBEC 659 ; 2002 KHC 1921 ; 2002 1 Supreme 230
2002(1) Supreme 230
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
B.N. Kirpal, K.G. Balakrishnan and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Dr. Anil Bajaj -Appellant
versus
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 608 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6336 of 2001)
Decided on 21-1-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.L. Batta, Senior Advocate, S.K. Puri, Ujjwal Banerjee, Ms. Anindita Gupta and H.K. Puri, Advocates.
For the Respondents : D.S. Nehra, Senior Advocate, Ms. Shobha, Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Anu Mehta, S.K. Mehta, Advocates for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co. Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Principle of estoppel would clearly apply in a case where a person gets sanction to go abroad on service on 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 and in fact that person does not come back in time.
Act Referred :EVIDENCE ACT : S.115
(A) The Evidence Act, Section 115, which bars a party from giving evidence that is inconsistent with a previous statement, applies where an individual has obtained an advantage or sanction on the basis of a condition and subsequently seeks to challenge that condition after failing to comply. In this case, the petitioner was permitted to proceed for employment abroad on the condition that he would resume duty within two years, a condition underscored by the relevant office order, and the provisions of this section support the denial of relief when the petitioner seeks to evade the consequences of his non-compliance.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of estoppel, the enforceability of conditions precedent in employment sanctions, the effect of ex-post facto sanction, the principle that a party cannot benefit from a breach of its own obligation, and the treatment of an unextended period as an automatic termination of privileges.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was granted an opportunity to work abroad with a conditional undertaking to resume duty within two years, but he remained away beyond the stipulated period and his request for extension was rejected in 1997; an order dated 13th January 1995 retrospectively sanctioned the assignment that commenced in 1994.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant did not return by the deadline and that his lien automatically terminated, held that estoppel barred him from challenging the termination, and concluded that the High Court was correct in dismissing his writ petition.
Issues:
Whether the appellant could challenge his termination after failing to resume duty within the stipulated period and having his extension rejected, and whether estoppel applies in such a scenario.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where an individual obtains an advantage on the condition of returning within a specified timeframe and fails to do so, he is estopped from challenging the automatic termination of that advantage; the doctrine of estoppel and the terms of the office order preclude relief.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
(A) The Evidence Act, Section 115, which bars a party from giving evidence that is inconsistent with a previous statement, applies where an individual has obtained an advantage or sanction on the basis of a condition and subsequently seeks to challenge that condition after failing to comply. In this case, the petitioner was permitted to proceed for employment abroad on the condition that he would resume duty within two years, a condition underscored by the relevant office order, and the provisions of this section support the denial of relief when the petitioner seeks to evade the consequences of his non-compliance.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of estoppel, the enforceability of conditions precedent in employment sanctions, the effect of ex-post facto sanction, the principle that a party cannot benefit from a breach of its own obligation, and the treatment of an unextended period as an automatic termination of privileges.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was granted an opportunity to work abroad with a conditional undertaking to resume duty within two years, but he remained away beyond the stipulated period and his request for extension was rejected in 1997; an order dated 13th January 1995 retrospectively sanctioned the assignment that commenced in 1994.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant did not return by the deadline and that his lien automatically terminated, held that estoppel barred him from challenging the termination, and concluded that the High Court was correct in dismissing his writ petition.
Issues:
Whether the appellant could challenge his termination after failing to resume duty within the stipulated period and having his extension rejected, and whether estoppel applies in such a scenario.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where an individual obtains an advantage on the condition of returning within a specified timeframe and fails to do so, he is estopped from challenging the automatic termination of that advantage; the doctrine of estoppel and the terms of the office order preclude relief.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
ORDER
Special leave granted.
2. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no 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 required 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 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 to have permanently left the Institute from the original date.
3. 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 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 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.
4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(N.K.R.) Appeal dismissed
**************