Hansaria, J.- The petitioner while holding the post of Lower Selection Grade Clerk, came to be compulsorily retired on 17.9.75 which was to come into effect from the afternoon of 30.9.75. This was challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. In the mean time an offer was made to the petitioner vide Annexure 4 dated 22.12.77 which has to be read in full : "As communicated by the Postmaster General, N. E. Circle, Shillong under his No. Staff/N-R/75/5 dated 22.12.77 the LXG. P & T, New Delhi has directed to reinstate you provided you are agreeable to the following conditions : 1. The period for which pay and allowances were paid to the ex-official in lieu of the notice period will be treated as duty. 2. The period of absence from the date of retirement till the date of his joining duty on reinstatement will be treated an leave due and admissible on obtaining an application from the ex-official for the purpose. 3. The retirement benefits taken by the official, if any, are to be refunded before you were re-instated In service and that you produce a certificate of fitness for continuance in Government service from the competent medical authority under the rules. Kindly intimate whether you are agreeable to the con­ditions stated above at an early date." The petitioner accepted the conditions and he was put back in service. He was however not paid his pay and allowances for the period during which he was absent from duty because of his forced retirement. It is this aspect of reinstatement which has been challenged in this application. 2. Shri Homchoudhury submits that though the petitioner had accepted the conditions narrated above, he had done so as he was under a very pressing circumstance being out of job for about two years. It is urged that under F.R. 54 the peti­tioner was entitled to full pay and allowances on his compulsory retirement having been withdrawn. The contention of learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government however is that the petitioner having accepted the offer made by Annexure 4, he cannot get anything beyond the stipulations in that Annexure. It may be reiterated that as per condition No, 2, the period of absence was to be treated as leave due and admissible. The contention of learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government however is that the petitioner having accepted the offer made by Annexure 4, he cannot get anything beyond the stipulations in that Annexure. It may be reiterated that as per condition No, 2, the period of absence was to be treated as leave due and admissible. The petitioner was thus clearly made known that he would not fee given back pay and allowances for the period in question. As such, the right to receive the pay and allowances was waived, according to the learned Standing Counsel. 3. Shri Homchoudhury contends that there could not have been any waiver on the facts and circumstances of the case. In support of his submission, he has first referred to Shri Krishan vs. Kurukeshtra University, AF11976 SC 376, wherein it was held that if there has been admission in ignorance of legal rights or under duress, the admission would not put the person out of the Court. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was Ignorant of his leg rights. We also do not read any duress as such on him. This decision cannot therefore assist the peti­tioner. Some support is sought to be derived by Shri Homchou­dhury from Bennett Coleman vs. Punya Priya, AIR 1979 SC 426 which has held that to attract section 115 of the Evidence Act the represses Blanton must be clear and unambiguous. As already noted, there was no ambiguity in the conditions on which the petitioner was to be taken back in service. It is then urged under the statute, more particularly F.R. 54, on reinstatement an incumbent is entitled under certain circumstances to full pay and allowances and definitely to a part of it in any case. The reinstatement in present case was not in pursuance to the setting aside of the order of compulsory retirement by any court or authority, but was a voluntary act of the Government and the petitioner was made known that he would be reinstated provided he was agreeable to the conditions mentioned in Annexure 4. By that Annexure he was also asked to intimate the authority whether he was agreeable to the conditions. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had agreed to the conditions in question after which he was reinstated in service. By that Annexure he was also asked to intimate the authority whether he was agreeable to the conditions. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had agreed to the conditions in question after which he was reinstated in service. It would be a case of approbation and reprobation if we were to allow the peti­tioner only to be reinstated in service but without being bound by the conditions mentioned in Annexure 4. 3. This being the position, we do not find any force in the petition and it stands dismissed