JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– Banerjee, J.: This appeal, at the instance of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, being a body corporate constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff who was a Foreman, Grade I under the services of the appellant. His case was that on 27.11.66 while the plaintiff was returning home in a departmental vehicle he suffered severe injury as a result of a collision with another vehicle. The plaintiff was taken to the R. G. Kar Hospital. Thereafter he was taken to his residence. The plaintiff had to take leave. He was medically treated by the Doctor by the defendant (Corporation) as well as by the private Doctor. The plaintiff was granted Rs. 500/- as ex gratia by the defendant. The plaintiff got leave from 28.12.66 to 14.5.67. He resumed his duties on 15.5.67 and worked upto 22.5.67 but took leave again for three months on the Medical Officer's advice. He applied on 26.5.67 for retirement on Medical ground but nothing was heard by him from the appellant. He joined on 23.8.67 but he was not allowed to continue his services as he was, it is alleged, medically unfit and was directed to take admission in the R. G. Kar Medical College Hospital. Again the plaintiff wanted to retire on medical ground but he was informed by the appellant (Corporation) that he was deemed to have resigned from service on 23.8.67 and the plaintiff's application for retirement on medical ground was not accepted. It is alleged that the plaintiff never resigned from service and the plaintiff asserted that he was still in service. Hence the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration against the defendant's said action in treating the plaintiff as resigned is void and illegal and for a declaration that the plaintiff is in service and is entitled to get salary, dearness allowances etc. from March, 1967. The defendant has filed written statement denying, inter alia, the material allegations in the plaint. from March, 1967. The defendant has filed written statement denying, inter alia, the material allegations in the plaint. The case made out by the defendant was that as the plaintiff absented himself from 28.12.66 and he resumed his duties on 15.5.67, he was granted extraordinary leave from 23.5.67 without pay and failed to resume his duties after the expiry of three months extraordinary leave admissible to the plaintiff under the Leave Rules of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation and therefore the plaintiff was deemed to have resigned from service and ceased to be in the employ of the defendant from 23.8.67. The suit was decreed on contest as against the sole defendant and a decree was made for a sum of Rs. 31,200/- calculating the salary, arrears of salary from March, 1967 to August, 1970 and dearness allowances from March, 1967 for three months as in Schedule A for Rs. 31,200/-. Being aggrieved by the said decree, the Calcutta State Transport Corporation filed the present appeal. 2. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the State Transport Corporation, the appellant, has contended that though it is true that the plaintiff wanted to retire on medical grounds, his application was not allowed by the defendant but the defendant deemed that the plaintiff had resigned from service as he failed to resume his duties after the extraordinary leave had expired on and from 23.8.67. It appears that the plaintiff wanted to join but was prevented by the authorities who did not allow him to join the service as being medically unfit and was directed to take admission to the R. G. Kar Medical College Hospital. It is quite clear from Ext. 1(i), being a letter dated 4.10.67 that the General Manager sought to reply to the letter dated 26.6.67 that he was deemed to have resigned from 23.8.67. It is quite clear, therefore, that the plaintiff was sought to have resigned in view of the fact that he had failed to join after the extraordinary leave had expired. 1(i), being a letter dated 4.10.67 that the General Manager sought to reply to the letter dated 26.6.67 that he was deemed to have resigned from 23.8.67. It is quite clear, therefore, that the plaintiff was sought to have resigned in view of the fact that he had failed to join after the extraordinary leave had expired. It is also clear from the finding of fact which was arrived at by the Court below that the plaintiff wanted to join but it was the defendant who felt that he was not fit as yet to join and the letter of resignation was never accepted by the authorities concerned and therefore he had been deemed to have resigned, the letter of retirement on medical grounds sent by the plaintiff was of no effect. In our view, the learned Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff did not resign from service but he wanted to retire from the service. He was deemed to have resigned from service in view of the order passed by the General Manager of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation. 3. It further appears that the plaintiff has the statutory right in view of the Road Transport Act, read with the Calcutta State Transport Authorities Act in accordance with the Rules framed under the statute and that the statutory right or status of the plaintiff as the servant of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation cannot be taken away except in accordance with the rules as framed by the Calcutta State Transport Corporation. It is possible for a person to resign on medical grounds if such resignation is accepted by the said Transport authorities but in the present case on facts it appears that this was not so. The authorities sought to terminate the services of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was deemed to have resigned on 23.8.67 under the statutory rules. 4. Under the rules, it is clear that the service of an employee of the Corporation can be terminated in accordance with the West Bengal Service Rules interview of Rule 23 of the State Transport Authorities Rules, which brings in the West Bengal Service Rules provided that the said rules are not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed by the Corporation. Under the West Bengal Service Rules, in particular Rule 34 of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part I. It has been provided that no Government servant in the permanent employment shall be granted leave on any ground for a continuous period not exceeding five years. Where such a Government servant under Rule 34(2) does not resume duties after remaining on leave for a continuous period of five years, such servant unless in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case otherwise would be deemed to have resigned and shall accordingly cease to be in Government employment. Under Rule 34, sub-rule (2), it is dear that even in such cases the Government may consider the exceptional circumstances of each case in order to apply Rule 34(2) of the West Bengal Service Rules and on the face of it before such rule is applied a show-cause notice must be given to the servant. To this proposition of law, Mr. Roy could not make a contrary suggestion. In fact, Mr. Roy only has contended that they may be allowed to consider the letter of 1967 asking the Corporation for leave to retire on medical grounds. We have already said that letter was not accepted. On the other hand, the servant of the Corporation was thought to be deemed to have resigned from service. In our opinion, therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore the decree appealed against must be affirmed and the appeal must stand dismissed. We are however, not deciding the matter for the demand of the salary of the plaintiff in this proceeding. It is for the plaintiff to apply to the Corporation and if such application is made, the same is to be considered in accordance with law. With these observations this appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. The money already deposited by the State Transport Corporation in the trial court may be withdrawn in satisfaction of the decree on payment of court-fees by the plaintiff. Maitra, J. : I agree.