ASSOCIATION OF ASST ENGINEERS METRO WATER REGN NO 150 84 Vs. MADRAS METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Writ Appeals are preferred against the order of learned single Judge in W.P. 11053 of 1996 dated 4.1.1999.

(2.) PARTIES herein will be referred according to their ranks in the writ petition.

(3.) IN the various grounds taken in the writ petition, it is said that the principles of promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel will apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. First respondent has held out a categorical assurance and promise that if a person qualifies himself in Post Graduate degree course, he will be given the benefit of weightage in seniority and this benefit had a number of conditions attached to it, such as half pay, execution of bond for five years, etc. Since petitioners have acted on the basis of promise made by first respondent and at all stages, they were under the impression and were made to understand that on passing the course, they would get weightage of seniority and having undergone the course and having acted on the basis of the promise held out by respondent, the Board cannot go back on those promises and withdraw the benefits already granted. It is further said that though the amendment is not retrospective, it has been made retro-active by stating that the revised rule will apply even to those who are already undergoing the course of study. It is their case that the Act prohibits the Board to make Regulations with retrospective effect. These Regulations have been made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 81 of the Act and it gives powers to the Board to specify the conditions of service of Officers and employees. The said Regulations can come into force on the date when the Regulations have been made by the Board and, therefore, it can only have prospective effect. It is their case that the amendment to the Regulations cannot be made applicable to the persons who have already acted on the earlier Regulations. It is their further case that the retrospectivity of the Regulations should not affect the vested rights of persons. On the basis of Regulation dated 29.4.1993, petitioners have obtained or acquired vested right to have the service conditions regulated in accordance with rules. It is their case that they have also suffered tremendous detriment by acting on the promise and assurance held out by first respondent. Detriments they have suffered are, (1) Bond to be executed by writ petitioners; (2) Half Pay which petitioners received during the course of study; (3) The family suffered on account of half-pay; (4) IN the course of failure to pass the course, refund of the entire half pay paid during the course of study; and (5) consequent tension due to the absence of failure in the course. On the basis of these detriments which petitioners suffered, first respondent is not entitled to rescind from the same. The impugned proceeding is also challenged as violative of principles of natural justice,