Calcutta High Court

WPA/25890/2026 of SANTOSH KUMAR DEY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 18 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

14 sdas WPA 25890 of 2026 Dr. Santosh Kumar Dey Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. M. N. Roy Mr. G. Haldar ….. for the petitioner Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Sr. Govt. Adv. Mr. Tarun Kumar Das ….. for the State 1. Let affidavit- of -service, as filed in Court, be kept on

18.09.2026

sdas

WPA 25890 of 2026

Dr. Santosh Kumar Dey

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. M. N. Roy

Mr. G. Haldar

….. for the petitioner

Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Sr. Govt. Adv.

Mr. Tarun Kumar Das

….. for the State

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record.

2. The petitioner’s prayer for resignation, which he tendered sometime on September 3, 2026 has not yet been considered.

3. The petitioner submits that he is not claiming any pensionary benefits or pension and gratuity from the authorities save and except the GPF, GISS and Leave Salary, if any.

4. The petitioner had rendered service in excess of 12 years and there is no impediment in accepting his resignation by the authorities. Non-consideration of the petitioner’s resignation is without any reason and has been kept pending since September 3, 2026.

5. As held by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in WPST 3 of 2024 (Dr. Samir Rana vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), there is no such Rule to withhold the resignation tendered by a doctor, unless verification, complaint or any other issue is pending against such doctor. In the instant case, there is no such issue pending and there is no justification to withhold and/or not accepting the resignation of the petitioner. However, as provided for in the Rule, if the mandated one month’s notice is not given, the incumbent is liable to forfeit a month’s salary in lieu of such notice. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner has not given one month’s notice and has tendered his resignation with immediate effect from September 3, 2026.

6. The respondent no. 2 will consider and accept the resignation and issue a letter to such extent by September 30, 2026 and calculate the amount due and payable, if any, on the afore-stated heads. The said amount will also be released by October 31, 2026, if it be found due and payable.

7. Since the petitioner had tendered his resignation with immediate effect on and from September 3, 2026, without giving the mandated one month’s notice, the petitioner will deposit a sum equivalent to one month’s salary paid to him since his services have not yet been confirmed. Such amount will be deposited by October 5, 2026 whereupon the release order will be issued.

8. With the aforestated directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

9. There will be no order as to costs.

10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead