Bhim Singh And Others
v.
State Of Haryana And Others
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal No. 4591 of 1979 | 24-07-1979
2. Having heard the counsel on both sides, we disposed of this appeal as it involves only a solitary point of law already covered by a decision of this Court.
3. By virtue of Ex. P-1, the state (respondent) held out certain specific promises as an inducement for the appellants to move into a New Department (Agriculture Department). After they had gone over to the Agriculture department, the state, by virtue of its Ex. P-3, sought to go back upon the earlier promise made in ex. P-1. The appellants having believed the representation made by the State and having further acted thereon cannot now be defeated of their hopes which have crystallised into rights, thanks to the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Therefore, it is not open to the State, according to the law laid down by this Court, to backtrack. We, therefore, direct the State to implement Ex. P-1 and confer such rights and benefits as are promised there under in entirety. Shri B. Datta says that a little time may be necessary for the various departments to readjust. We allow three months time for implementation of Ex. P-1, failing which the State will be held in breach. No costs.
Advocates List
For
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE V. R. KRISHNA IYER
HON'BLE JUSTICE D. A. DESAI
HON'BLE JUSTICE A. D. KOSHAL
Eq Citation
(1979) SCC CRI 1052
(1981) 2 SCC 673
AIR 1980 SC 768
1979 (11) UJ 829
LQ/SC/1979/297
HeadNote
Service Law — Recruitment — Promises made to candidates — Doctrine of promissory estoppel — Application of — State respondent by virtue of Ex P1 holding out certain specific promises as an inducement for appellants to move into a New Department (Agriculture Department) — After they had gone over to the Agriculture department, state by virtue of its Ex P3 seeking to go back upon the earlier promise made in Ex P1 — Appellants having believed the representation made by the State and having further acted thereon, cannot now be defeated of their hopes which have crystallised into rights thanks to the application of doctrine of promissory estoppel — Therefore it is not open to the State according to the law laid down by Supreme Court to backtrack — State directed to implement Ex P1 and confer such rights and benefits as are promised there under in entirety — State allowed three months time for implementation of Ex P1 failing which State will be held in breach
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
