Acceptance of appointment terms and long-term acquiescence estops an employee from subsequently challenging their substantive post or trade.

The applicant was initially engaged on June 20, 1989, as a Seasonal Anti Malaria Lascar for a fixed temporary period

Following the expiration of his tenure and subsequent litigation in O.A. No. 953/1989, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicant for appointment

On December 19, 1990, the respondents issued an appointment letter absorbing the applicant into service specifically against the post of Safaiwala (Group ‘D’) due to the non-availability of vacancies in the Lascar cadre

The applicant accepted the terms of this appointment without protest and joined the post

In 2001, following further litigation (O.A. No. 1365/1999), the respondents offered a policy-based "change of trade" to Lascar, provided the employees accepted pay fixation at the initial stage of the scale. While others accepted, the applicant refused this condition

In 2012, the respondents issued a show-cause notice and an attachment order directing the applicant to perform Safaiwala duties, alleging he was failing to do so despite it being his substantive trade. The applicant challenged these orders, claiming he had been treated as a Lascar for 22 years in official records

1. Whether the applicant’s substantive appointment was to the post of Safaiwala or Anti Malaria Lascar

2. Whether the applicant, having accepted and joined the post of Safaiwala in 1990, is estopped from challenging his trade designation after a prolonged period

3. Whether the performance of duties as a Lascar for several years confers a legal right to that post despite a substantive appointment as a Safaiwala

The Tribunal applied the principles of Estoppel and Acquiescence, holding that an employee who accepts an appointment letter and its specific terms without protest is legally barred from challenging those terms after a significant lapse of time

It further applied the principle that the nature of a substantive appointment (as evidenced by the appointment letter) overrides the nature of duties assigned or performed for the purpose of determining cadre and legal status

Additionally, the court noted that once an employee declines a benefit offered under a policy decision (such as the trade change offer of 2001), they cannot subsequently seek the same relief through litigation

The Tribunal examined the 1990 absorption order and found it explicitly stated the applicant was being appointed as a Safaiwala

It rejected the applicant’s contention that he was never appointed to that post, noting that his acceptance and subsequent decades of service constituted acquiescence to the terms of the 1990 letter

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere fact that the applicant might have been assigned Lascar duties or was mentioned as such in certain administrative lists does not create a substantive legal right to the post of Lascar, especially when his official absorption was against a Safaiwala vacancy

Furthermore, the court highlighted the applicant’s refusal to accept the 2001 policy for trade change (due to pay reduction), concluding that having passed up the official mechanism for trade correction, he could not resile from his status as a Safaiwala now

Consequently, the respondents’ demand that he perform the duties of his substantive post (Safaiwala) was deemed lawful

The court concluded that the challenge to the show-cause notice dated April 23, 2012, and the attachment order dated May 3, 2012, lacked merit as these actions were consistent with the applicant’s service records. No order as to costs was made