Kolkata: A tram driver of the West Bengal Transport Corporation Ltd, who was allowed to return to duty after repeated unauthorised absence, has lost his bid to restore past service benefits, with the Calcutta High Court ruling that an employee cannot accept conditional re-employment and challenge it years later.
In the case before Justice Amrita Sinha, the driver had approached the court seeking continuity of service after being re-engaged with a break, which affected his pay and seniority and placed him at a disadvantage compared to his peers.
Court records showed that he was earlier discharged in 2012 for prolonged absence but was reinstated on humanitarian grounds with full continuity. However, he again remained absent for over 90 consecutive days in 2015. Following disciplinary action, he was made to retire on medical grounds, but on appeal, the authority allowed him to return to service—this time without continuity, treating the period of absence as a break and resetting his pay as that of a new entrant.
The employer maintained that the petitioner was a habitual offender and had absented himself from duty on multiple occasions without authorisation. It argued that the decision to re-engage him, even with conditions, was taken on sympathetic grounds to give him another opportunity to continue in service.
Importantly, the driver accepted this condition and resumed work without objection, continuing in service under the revised terms.
Years later, he moved to the High Court, challenging the same terms, claiming the condition was unjustified and not in line with service rules.
Justice Amrita Sinha observed that the petitioner failed to explain the long delay in approaching the court and had effectively accepted the conditions of his re-engagement. The court noted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and cannot be invoked by those who sleep over their rights.
Holding that the employee had waived his right to object after accepting the benefit of re-employment, the court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition.