1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2715/97 Padam Singh & Anr. vs. Urban Improvement Trust Date of order : 20/1/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri D.C. Gupta for the petitioners. None present for the respondent. ****** Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that they may be granted semi permanent status on completion of two years of service and all the consequential including the seniority grade increments, difference of salary, all types of leave and other benefits. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner were illegally removed from service, on which question, an industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its award dated 25.8.1992 held the termination of the petitioners as illegal and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits. When the petitioners were not granted semi permanent status, they 2 approached this Court by filing the writ petition. The writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioners reserving however the liberty to file a fresh one. Shri D.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents by exercising undue pressure upon petitioners, who were not aware of the implication thereto got a compromise signed from them. They never intended to forego their right on entering such compromise. In the compromise, it was shown that the respondent Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur has agreed to grant semi permanent status with effect from 1.4.1994 and that petitioners would withdraw the writ petition filed by them and the Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur would also withdraw the special leave filed by him against the judgement of the single bench of this Court, upholding the award. It was therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed. The respondents in reply to the writ petition have denied his assertion. It is contended that the petitioners themselves on their will and without any pressure on them 3 entered in to the compromise. Pursuant to such compromise, which was entered into between them on 13.3.1995, petitioners withdrew their writ petition on 23.8.1995. The Urban Improvement Trust also withdrew the special appeal filed by it. It is submitted that once the compromise entered into between the parties, the petitioners cannot be allowed to go back from their earlier stand and take a somersault now. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the reply filed by the respondents, I find that petitioners when they entered into a compromise, which is on record at Annexure-4 and 5, cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the same. The compromise was executed on non-judicial stamp of Rs.5/-. Acting upon that compromise, the respondent withdrew the said appeal and petitioners also withdrew their writ petitions. When both the parties acted upon such compromise, it cannot be said that one party can be allowed to resile from the same. It cannot be believed, nor can it be accepted as a question of fact that the petitioners were pressurised. When the 4 petitioners approached the labour Court or this Court, it cannot be believed that they got pressurised into signing such compromise. The compromise has been entered by them on their own will and the terms and conditions enumerated therein were acted upon by both the parties. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/