Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

72. As ruled in S.I. Rooplal 's case (supra), a fundamental right or a right accrued under the rules, cannot be waived off or acquiesced by an incumbent. Moreover, the representation of the applicants as to counting of their erstwhile service for the purpose of seniority has not been considered at all and this clearly shows that their erstwhile request not to affect the right of existing incumbents of ILS is without prejudice to their right to count their erstwhile service towards seniority by representing for such a grievance, the earlier stand taken has lost its effect and is denuded. Moreover, it was only after the proposal for merger of incumbents of law Commission into ILS was mooted for the first time the seniority aspect has come into being, which on immediate representation, was objected to, rules out an applicability of principle of estoppel or waiver in the present cases. Government, which is on the upper hand and having bargaining power and prerogative to act, cannot barter the rights of the individual when a decision is taken in public interest, as in the matter of functioning by public functionaries, discretion vested in them is to beexercised judiciously without any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the action. Government as a model employer and as a Welfare State should act to the welfare of the employees, which not only includes in the present cases the interest of incumbents of Law Commission but also the ILS incumbents and in such view of the matter, before taking a decision, balance should have been struck between the rights and interest of both the cadres. It appears that undue haste in the decision had led to rival claims, dispute and ultimately a chaotic situation, which has affected the working of unified ILS cadre, which is neither in the interest of the employees nor in the interest of exigencies of service. If by adecision of the Government dissatisfaction among the employees rises, the action would not be congenial in any manner rather the act would violate inter se rights of the individuals, which would ultimately offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This undue haste of non-application of mind and for want of weigh the prons and cons and repercussions in future, the decision rendered to merge Law Commission with ILS has not only lost its utility but its legality has now in deep waters.