Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51239-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 254 of 2025 Appellant :- Amar Chandra Yadav Respondent :- Hindustan Cable Ltd And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi,Vivek Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Shukla,Diptiman Singh Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. This special appeal is by the writ petitioner, who is aggrieved by dismissal of his writ by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 4.3.2025. Undisputed facts, as are noticed by the learned Single Judge, is that the petitioner-appellant was appointed on 20.8.1992 in M/s Hindustan Cable Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'HCL'). Subsequently HCL was taken over by M/s Naini Aerospace Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'NAL'), a subsidiary of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. A fresh appointment was offered to the appellant by M/s NAL, wherein it was clearly provided that the writ petitioner would not be entitled to claim any salary or other service benefits from NAL with regard to claims of the appellant against HCL. The offer of appointment dated 1.2.2017 containing such specification in the appointment letter itself has been quoted by the learned Single Judge in para 7 of the judgment. It is undisputed that the appellant accepted such appointment and thereby acquiesced to the terms of the appointment according to which the appellant is denuded of any right to make any claim from the employer M/s NAL in respect of the previous working offered to HCL. The petitioner-appellant not only acquiesced to offer of appointment dated 1.2.2017 but superannuated from such employment on attaining the age of retirement on 31.3.2024. It is thereafter that the appellant has raised a claim in respect of the previous employment with the HCL relying upon an agreement under which the unit itself was transferred by HCL to NAL. Learned Single Judge has observed that the taking over responsibilities by the subsequent employer of the claims of previous employer is an aspect distinct from the issue raised in the present matter. It is only the valid claims of employees of the previous employer which would have to be taken over by the subsequent employer. However, the fresh appointment accepted by the appellant on the condition of giving up any previous claim against the earlier employer would not revive on account of the agreement which has been entered into between the previous employer and the subsequent employer. Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant submits that the rights of the petitioner-appellant against HCL cannot be obliterated and would have to be enforced against the subsequent employer. Sri Diptiman Singh and Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsels for the respondents, on the other hand states that the petitioner-appellant having acquiesced to the appointment cannot subsequently turn around and claim entitlement from the previous employer as it would be hit by the principles of acquiescence and estoppel. Having considered the respective submissions, we find substance in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in non-suiting the appellant for the simple reason that the appellant willingly accepted fresh appointment offered to him by the subsequent employer i.e. M/s NAL. The appointment letter dated 1.2.2017 made it specific that the appointee has given up any claim which he/she may have had against the previous employer. Having accepted such appointment, it was not open for the petitioner to revive a claim which he himself had given up consciously at the time of accepting fresh appointment. We are thus in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and consequently, the special appeal fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 RA Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad