Tapabrata Chakraborty J. - (1.) The short issue which arises for consideration is to whether the proviso to Rule 34-A(1) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) introduced by way of an amendment vide notification dated 26th August, 2016 within the period of haitus towards acceptance of resignation tendered by the petitioner, interdicts the petitioner's right to be considered for resignation.
(2.) The said issue needs to be considered in the back drop of the facts that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Demonstrator of Pathology on 20th December, 2012 under the West Bengal Medical Education Service Cadre. By a representation dated 1st August, 2016 addressed to the Director of Medical Education through proper channel, the petitioner prayed for resignation. As the respondents did not consider the said representation, the petitioner preferred an original application being O. A. 905 of 2016 before the learned Tribunal without having any knowledge about the fact that during the period of haitus for a month, as provided under Rule 34-A(1) of the said Rules, a proviso to the said Rule was introduced on 26th August, 2016 to the effect that the provision of the said sub-rule (1) of Rule 34-A shall not be applicable prior to completion of a period of at least five years of continuous service with effect from the date of joining. Considering the said notification the learned Tribunal dismissed the original application by an order dated 27th September, 2016 observing, inter alia, that the amendment became effective before the petitioner acquired any vested right to have her resignation accepted since during the period of haitus in view of Rule 34-A(1), the new amendment came into effect and that the petitioner is bound by the rigors of the said amendment.
(3.) Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the right to be considered for resignation accrued in favour of the petitioner on 1st August, 2016 when she submitted her representation tendering her resignation and such accrued right comes within the ambit of the words "any right accrued" in Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the same cannot be curtailed by an amendment to the said Rules brought in effect from 26th August, 2016 since every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication said to have retrospective effect. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of M/s. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. M/s. Amrit Lal and Co. and Anr., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 397 and in the case of Videocon International Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 33.;