Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 608 of 2001
PETITIONER:
ANIL BAJAJ (DR.)
RESPONDENT:
POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/01/2002
BENCH:
B.N. KIRPAL & K..G. BALAKRISHNAN & ARIJIT PASAYAT
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2002 (1) SCR 375
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
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.
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.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.