BHIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(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-l. 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-l and confer such rights and benefits as are promised thereunder in entirety. Shri B. Datta says that a little time may be necessary for the various depart- ments to readjust. We allow three months' time for implementation of ex. P-l, failing which the State will be held in breach. No costs.