Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

28. However, leraned Counsel for the petitioner argued in this respect that as this Court decided in Viney Kumar Majoo's case 1968 RLW 325 that the retrenchment of the petitioner in that case was invalid because of the non-compliance of the conditions envisaged in Section 25F of the Act, petitioner hoped that the respondents would retrace their steps and would re call the impugned order of termination of bis services, which was similar to that passed in Viney Kumar Majoo's case 1968 RLW 325 and it was in this expectation that the petitioner waited, but as the respondents did not set aside his retrenchment he had to approach this Court. In my view if the petitioner did not join the post of a work-charged Engineering Subordinate offered to him by the respondents it cannot be inferred therefrom that the petitioner has waived or that he is estopped from challenging the impugned order of termination of his service. On the other hand, from the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner it appears that he was firm in his stand that the injustice done to bin, on account of the order of termination of his services should be rectified. Moreover, it has hot been disclosed by the respondents as to for what period (he post of work charged supervisor offered to the petitioner by them was going to last in as much as it was a temporary assignment relating to Famine Relief Works and for ought one knows, might be of a very short duration. The petitioner's grievance could not have been satisfied by such an offer.