Acceptance of conditional re-engagement without objection precludes subsequent challenge to service conditions after unexplained delay.

The petitioner, a driver for the West Bengal Transport Corporation Ltd., was initially discharged in 2012 for unauthorized absence exceeding ninety days

On humanitarian grounds, he was re-engaged with continuity of service

In 2015, the petitioner again absented himself for over ninety days, resulting in his retirement on medical grounds

Upon appeal, the Chief Operating Manager passed an order on August 7, 2015, permitting his re-engagement but specifically without continuity in service, treating him as a new entrant

The petitioner accepted this condition and rejoined service without objection

In 2022, seven years later, the petitioner moved the High Court challenging the 2015 order, alleging the punishment was not enumerated in the Standing Orders and seeking pay parity with peer drivers

1. Whether the order of re-engagement without continuity of service was legally sustainable despite not being explicitly enumerated in the Standing Orders

2. Whether the petitioner is barred by the doctrine of laches and waiver from challenging the condition of re-engagement after a delay of seven years

The court primarily relied on the principles governing Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which establishes that the High Court’s extraordinary prerogative jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised in favor of those who "sleep over their rights"

The court applied the doctrines of laches (unreasonable delay) and waiver, emphasizing that a party who accepts a benefit (re-engagement) under specific conditions and fails to object for a prolonged period is deemed to have waived their right to challenge those conditions

The court observed that the petitioner was a "habitual offender" who had already been granted leniency in 2012

The 2015 re-engagement without continuity was a discretionary act of mercy by the employer rather than a standard disciplinary punishment

The court found that the petitioner failed to provide any "plausible answer" for the seven-year delay in approaching the judicial forum

It reasoned that the petitioner had made a strategic choice to accept the conditional re-engagement to avoid total job loss, creating a "win-win situation" at the time

By re-joining service "without a murmur," the petitioner effectively waived his right to object

The court held that exercising jurisdiction in such cases would hinder the day-to-day functioning of the employer and reward conduct that caused administrative problems

The court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 due to the unexplained delay and the petitioner's prior conduct. The writ petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted