Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 1484
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Sajjan Kumar Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13044/2021
Decided On : 18-11-2021
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Advocate, for the Petitioner
An employee cannot reject part of their employment duties after accepting the terms and benefits of their appointment.
Headnote:
Estoppel - Employment - Duty Assignment - The court discussed the doctrine of estoppel, particularly the principle of approbate and reprobate, emphasizing that an employee cannot reject part of their employment terms after accepting benefits from them.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a duty assignment as a Driver, arguing he had been working as a Conductor since his appointment in 2005 and should not be forced to take on Driver duties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was appointed as Driver-cum-Conductor and could not refuse Driver duties, as he accepted the terms of his employment and possessed the necessary qualifications.
Issues: Whether the petitioner can refuse to perform duties as a Driver despite being appointed as Driver-cum-Conductor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that acceptance of employment terms precludes a party from later denying those terms, applying the doctrine of estoppel.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed as it lacks merit.
JUDGMENT
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Duty Chart dated 14.10.2021 issued by the respondent- Corporation whereby, the petitioner has been asked to discharge duty as Driver.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after his appointment in the year 2005, he is continuously working as Conductor and now, against his wishes, he cannot be asked to discharge the duty of Driver. He, therefore, prays for quashing the Duty Chart dated 14.10.2021.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Indisputably, the petitioner applied for appointment in pursuance of advertisement No.201/204-2005 issued by the respondent-Corporation whereby, applications were invited for preparing a Panel for appointment as Driver-cum-Conductor in view of potential requirement of Drivers. The petitioner has been selected and appointed in pursuance thereof. Since, the initial appointment of the petitioner is from the Panel prepared for Driver-cum-Conductor, he cannot raise any grievance if he is required to discharge duty as Driver, though, not required till date. The petitioner has not disputed that he possesses the eligibility for driving a vehicle. It is trite law that if a persons accepts appointment with eyes wide open to the terms of appointment, he cannot be permitted to deny a part of it having taken advantage of the rest. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case of State of Punjab & Ors. versus Dhanjit Singh Sandhu-(2014) 15 SCC 144, held as under:-
"22. The doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" is only a species of estoppel, it implies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. (vide C.I.T. v. Mr. P. Firm Muar, AIR 1965 SC 1216).
23. It is settled proposition of law that once an order has been passed, it is complied with, accepted by the other party and derived the benefit out of it, he cannot challenge it on any ground. (Vide Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati & Ors., AIR 1969 SC 329). In R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683, this Court has observed as under:-
"10.Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that "a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage."
24. This Court in Sri Babu Ram v. Sri Indra Pal Singh (Dead) by LRs., (1998) 6 SCC 358, and P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balram Haibatti, (1998) 6 SCC 507, Court has observed that:
"8. The doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel- the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate inheres in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one of the species of estoppel in pais (or equitable estoppel) which is a rule in equity. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had."
25. The Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Anr. v. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr., (2013) 5 SCC 470, made an observation that a party cannot be permitted to "blow hot and cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate". Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or order. This rule is applied to do equity, however, it must not be applied in a manner as to violate the principles of right and good conscience.
26. It is evident that the doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel, the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate is inherent in it. The doctrine
