Jalwa Ram vs The State of Bihar and Others

The Appellant in this case was the Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11492 of 1996, wherein he sought clashing of the order dated 29.11.1991 (Annexure-1), by which he was removed from service of the Raj Bhawan, Bihar, on certain charges found established against him in a departmental enquiry.

While dismissing the writ petition by the order under appeal dated 23.9.1998 the learned writ court has noticed that the writ petition was filed on 31.10.1996 i.e. after about a delay of five years and it was further noticed that it was filed after negotiation and agreement between the State Government and the Bihar State Non-Gazetted Employees Federation, following which the Appellant and five other employees dismissed from the Raj Bhawan were absorbed in the service of the State Government by relaxing certain rules. Evidently the Appellant secured his position by negotiation and agreement and thereafter started this litigation after a delay of about five years.

Mr. S.P. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel for the Appellant argued that the subsequent order of absorption dated 4.12.1995 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) was partially illegal in as much as while absorbing the Appellant and others it provides that the appointment shall be a new appointment effective from the date of joining and seniority shall be decided from the same date. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant the said clause in Annexure-19 was unconscionable and hence fit to be quashed.

In the facts of the case the learned writ court has rightly held that no relief can be granted to the Petitioner both on the ground of delay as well as on the principle of estoppel as he had secured advantages for himself pursuant to negotiation and agreement. The materials brought on record do not show that there was any stipulation in the agreement or in the consequent order that the State Government had agreed to absorb the Appellant and some others and that such employees will avail the benefits of the agreement without prejudice to their right to challenge the dismissal order of 1991.

Hence, no ground is made out to warrant interference with the order under appeal and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.