JUDGMENT 1. - We have gone through the.order dated July 1, 2002, passed by learned Single Judge. There is no dispute that the respondent had been appointed as Bheldar in the Municipality in the year 1992 on fixed pay. He had filed a petition in the High Court for the regular pay scale because the employees of the fire staff had already been given the pay scale as ordered by the High Court and dispute with regard to the arrears was pending. Therefore, keeping in view the dispute with regard to the arrears and in order to save himself from this dispute the respondent was asked that he may be absorbed on the post of Naka-guard, provided he seeks to withdraw his writ petition from the High Court and also gives up his claim for the services rendered in past. It was on this condition that the appointment was given to him again after the withdrawal of the petition. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.9.97 in presence of the counsel for the respondents namely Mr. G.K. Garg for the State, and Mr. B.K. Sharma for the Municipality, Thereafter on the basis of the Government order dated 19.9.97, the services of the respondent were sought to be terminated and order terminating his services was given to him on 3rd October, 1997. Learned Single Judge has rightly noted that by an order dated 24.1.1997, the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Dholpur, had asked the respondent that in case he withdraws his writ petition for regular any scale and arrears etc., he may be given fresh appointment subject to the further condition that he will not claim for the past service. It was on this basis that the Petition No. 6589/93 was withdrawn and the same was withdrawn on 22.9.1997. It is also clear that order dated 22.9.1997 had been passed in presence of the counsel for the State as also the counsel for Municipal Board and on this date i.e. 22.9.1997, the Local Self Department had already issued an order dated 19.9.1997, imposing ban on appointments. Thus notwithstanding the order dated 19th September, 1997 imposing ban, earlier petition was got dismissed as withdrawn on the understanding that in terms of the Chairman's order dated 24.1.1997, the appointment will be given to the respondent, and accordingly the appointment was given only in that back ground and on that basis. Thus notwithstanding the order dated 19th September, 1997 imposing ban, earlier petition was got dismissed as withdrawn on the understanding that in terms of the Chairman's order dated 24.1.1997, the appointment will be given to the respondent, and accordingly the appointment was given only in that back ground and on that basis. The case of the respondent is that on 3rd October 1997 within ten days, he was removed again by saying that - Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has been complied with. 2. To us it appears that the respondent was actually tripped to withdraw the earlier writ petition, give up his claim for past services etc.; he was made to act to his own prejudice on representation made to him by the Chairman of the Municipality and, therefore, the present appellants were estoppel from terminating the services of the respondent by principle of equitable estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, immediately after the withdrawal of the writ petition and the action taken by them can not be held to be just and fair merely because they say that Section 25-F of the Act had been complied with. We find no reason to interfere with the order as has been passed by the learned Single Judge which in our opinion seeks to render substantive justice between the parties. The appeal has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.Spl. appeal dismissed. *******