IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appellate Side 14.08.2026 S/L 02 Court No. 4 (Naba) M.A.T. 927 of 2014 With CAN 2 of 2014 (Old No. CAN 5726 of 2014) Dr. Nikhil Ranjan Banerjea Vs. The State of West Bengal &Ors. Mr. Subrata Mukhopadhyay, Ms. Basabi Raichoudhury, Ms. Srijata Mukherjee, Mr. Riddhi Ghosh ...for the Petitioner Ms. ChandreyiAlam, ld. A.G.P., Ms. Kakali Dutta ...for the State 1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner and the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner is claiming parity with one Champak Kumar Nag for the purposes of calculation of his qualifying service for grant of pension. There was an order dated 20.09.2013, by the Writ Court in W.P. 9210 (W) of 2011, which directed for consideration of his claim giving due consideration to the benefit granted to Champak Kumar Nag. The authorities have considered the appellant/petitioner’s claim by a reasoned order 2 dated 09.01.2013. The reasoned order was issued by the Secretary of the Higher Education Department, Government of West Bengal rejecting the appellant/petitioner’s claim. The same was put to challenge in the writ proceeding. The learned Single Judge Bench by an order dated 27.02.2014, dismissed the writ petition, however, observing that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from making a request to the State Government at a higher level for the State Government’s discretion to be exercised in the matter. The order of the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of the present Intra-Court Appeal. 3. The learned advocate representing the appellant submits that it is a gross case of discrimination, whereas Champak Kumar Nag was allowed a benefit, the appellant is deprived of the same. The authorities did not accord consideration at par with Champak Kumar Nag despite the order passed earlier by the Writ Court. 4. The learned A.G.P. on the other hand submits that the order of the Writ Court did not direct for grant of the same benefit. It merely directed a consideration. It is further submitted that in the present case, the appellant served the State Government in different capacities in two periods, 3 from 01.03.1969 till 06.01.1981 and thereafter from 01.09.2004 till 01.03.2009, which are separated by a long gap of 23 years 7 months 23 days. In the first instance, he served the State Government for 11 years 10 months and 06 days. He then resigned from service. More Than 23 years thereafter, he served the State Government again for 04 years 06 months. The appellant, had thus put in about 16 years in service under the State Government in two distinct periods. It is submitted that the two periods of services, therefore, cannot be counted for reckoning qualifying service. Therefore, there is no scope for claim of parity with Champak Kumar Nag, in whose case by counting the two periods, which were separated by a gap of about more than a decade. However, he fulfilled the requisite 20 years qualifying service by considering the two distinct periods, for grant of pension. 5. We have considered the rival submissions, the reasoned order, and the order dated 05.03.2007 whereby the said Champak Kumar Nag was granted the benefit despite a hiatus of more than a decade between the two periods of State Government service. From the order it is apparent that the two distinct periods of services when taken together, satisfied the requisite qualifying 4 service for grant of pension. From the order it does not appear that the said Champak Kumar Nag had tendered any resignation after the first period of his service between 16.08.1971 to 31.10.1982. 6. In the present case after serving the State Government at the first instance for 11 years 10 months and 06 days, the present appellant had tendered a resignation. He thereafter joined other organisations before again being appointed under the State Government for a period of 04 years 06 months as a Vice Chancellor. 7. The effect of his resignation subsequent upon 11 years 10 months and 06 days of service is manifest from Rule 33 of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1971, which in unambiguous terms states that a resignation shall entail forfeiture of past service. Once, the appellant resigned, there was no scope whatsoever for him to claim any benefit for the period of 11 years 10 months and 06 days, which he had served at the first instance, since this period of service stood forfeited. 8. Thus, there was no scope for the authorities to include the past forfeited service while calculating his qualifying service. This fact clearly distinguishes the appellant’s case from the case of Champak Kumar Nag. 5 9. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the decision of the Secretary rejecting the appellant’s claim. 10. We also, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 27.02.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 5916(W) of 2014, rejecting the appellant’s claim. 11. The Intra-Court Appeal is dismissed. 12. Pending application also stands disposed of. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)