JUDGMENT SATYABRATA SINHA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 5th September, 1997 passed in C.O. 7490 (W) of 1991, whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, wherein he claimed for the following reliefs:- "(a) Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents from giving effect or further effect to the impugned orders as in Annexure 'D' and 'E' hereto, and further commanding them to rescind, recall and/or withdraw the same. (b) A further writ or Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get invalid pension from the respondents who be directed to pay to him the same in accordance with law with arrears on that score within a specified time. (c) Writ of certiorari calling upon the respondents to certify and to produce or cause to be produced all records pertaining to the case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice may be done by setting aside and/or quashing the impugned orders as in Annexure 'D' and 'E' hereto." 2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. 3. The petitioner joined his services under the appellant college in 1967 as a stenographer. With effect from 2.6.69, he has been suffering leprosy. For a period of more than three years i.e., 2.6.69 till 27.7.72, he took leave on the ground of his illness and on 23.7.72, he categorically stated that he could not remain in service and as such, he prayed for grant of his due leave. On 8.5.73, the petitioner submitted his resignation on the ground of illness with-retrospective effect on 24.7.72. On 21.7.73, the petitioner was informed that he may be allowed to avail leave for a period of five years upon furnishing medical certificate. In the meantime, State of West Bengal introduced a scheme known as, Death Cum Retirement Benefit Scheme (Non-teaching) by office Memo/Order dated 1.10.82 with retrospective effect from 1.4.74. On 21.10.74, the petitioner was informed that he should submit a certificate from the Specialist for acceptance of his resignation and such a certificate was submitted on 1.4.77, whereafter his resignation was accepted by the Standing Committee by order dated 30th June, 1977 with effect from 24.7.72 and the said decision was rectified by the Board by an Order dated 27.8.77. By reason of a letter dated 14.10.77 as contained in annexure 'C' to the writ application, the petitioner as conveyed the aforementioned decision. The petitioner did not question the said order for a long time. The petitioner's son has got appointment on compassionate ground by a letter dated 30th September, 1986. The Appellant states that it did not object to the appointment of the petitioner's son and for that purpose conditions therefor were relaxed. Only on 19.12.88, a prayer was made by the petitioner and he filed an application for grant of invalid pension which was rejected by an order dated 19.12.88 as contained in annexure 'D' to the writ application. The petitioner submitted a representation before the State of West Bengal and by an order dated 7.2.90, the said representation was also rejected which is contained in annexure 'E' to the writ application. The writ petition was filed in the year 1991, questioning the aforementioned orders dated 19.12.88 and 7.2.90. The learned trial Judge upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, allowed the writ application. 4. Mr. N.C. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has raised four contentions in support of this appeal. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner did not fulfill qualifying service in terms of the Government Circular letter dated 1.4.74 inasmuch as his resignation has been accepted with effect from 24.2.72. The learned counsel further contends that although the order of acceptance of his resignation having been passed on 14.10.77, the said order was never the subject matter of the writ application which was filed only in the year 1991 and as such Mr. Bhattacharjee would contend that the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and in support of his aforementioned contention he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 2249. It was further submitted that the petitioner has also in his writ application suppressed the material fact, namely that his son had got an employment on compassionate ground because he was allowed to retire on the ground of his medical incapacity and in that view of the matter too, he would not be entitled to any relief. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, supports the contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee. 5. Mr. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, supports the contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee. 5. Mr. Bose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioner first respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the decision relied upon by the learned trial Judge, namely, P. Kasilingam vs. P.S.C. College of Technology, AIR 1981 SC 789 , Raj Kumar vs. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 780, J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Kanpur vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & other, AIR 1990 SC 1808 , Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation vs. M/s. General Cab (India) Pvt. Ltd. & other, AIR 1993 SC 1435 , the petitioner's resignation could not be accepted with retrospective effect inasmuch as it is discretion of the petitioner to withdraw the resignation before the same was accepted. The learned counsel also submitted that natural justice and fair play demanded that the petitioner ought to have been given benefit in terms of the aforementioned circular letter dated 1.4.74. The learned counsel pointed out that in the year 1969 the petitioner was assaulted by the police authority in the college itself when after he began suffering from leprosy and as such, according to the learned counsel, such sufferance having been incurred in course of employment, the Death-cum-Retiral Benefit Scheme (Non-teaching). 6. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, in our opinion, it is not necessary to go into the larger question inasmuch as in the facts and circumstances of this case, as to whether the petitioner's resignation could have been accepted with retrospective effect. Admittedly, the scheme was framed by the State Government on 1.4.74 and the relevant provisions thereof are as follows:- "Clause 8 of D.C.R. Benefit Scheme. Subject to satisfactory service, no employee shall be entitled to pension provided the employee completed at least 10 years qualifying service." Clause 11 (D.C.R. Benefit Scheme). An Employee applying for an invalid pension shall submit a medical certificate from the Chief Medical Officer of the State Government in the concerned district of from any other Medical Officer of equivalent status nominated or authorised by the Pension Sanctioning Authority." 7. A bare perusal of clause 8 aforementioned, it would be absolutely clear that the condition precedent for obtaining benefit of the said scheme, one is required to complete ten years qualifying service which must be a satisfactory one. A bare perusal of clause 8 aforementioned, it would be absolutely clear that the condition precedent for obtaining benefit of the said scheme, one is required to complete ten years qualifying service which must be a satisfactory one. On his own showing, the petitioner being a stenographer was not in a position to render any service to the appellant College from June, 1969. It is also not the case of the petitioner that at any point of time, he had withdrawn his resignation or sought for any other light work. It, therefore, stands admitted that from June, 1969 till 14.10.77, he did not render any service whatsoever. Qualifying service for a period of ten years in order to obtain benefit of the said scheme, would clearly envisage actual rendition of the service. As the petitioner did not and could not render any service for a period of more that eight years and actually rendered service for a period of two years, the question of his rendition of ten years satisfactory service did not and could not arise. On the aforementioned ground alone, the writ application of the petitioner could not have been entertained. Furthermore, the petitioner did not question the order dated 14.10.77 as contained in annexure 'C' to the writ application. If any illegality had been committed by the Board of Directors in ratifying the order passed by the Standing Committee in accepting the resignation of the petitioner with retrospective effect from 24.7.72, the petitioner should have questioned the same by filing an appropriate writ application. Even in the writ application, he has not questioned the said order. The petitioner furthermore, filed the writ application after a long time although the impugned order as contained in annexure 'D' to the writ application passed as aforesaid on 19.12.88. It is now well known that those who sleep over their right could not be granted any equitable relief. Reference in this connection may be made to AIR 1997 SC 2249. Furthermore, it is not also beyond any dispute that in this writ application, the petitioner has not disclosed that his son obtained an appointment on the ground that he was allowed to retire on the ground of his physical incapacity. Such an appointment was made, as noticed hereinbefore, in view of the letter of the State Government dated 30th September, 1986, whereby and whereunder rules were relaxed. 8. Such an appointment was made, as noticed hereinbefore, in view of the letter of the State Government dated 30th September, 1986, whereby and whereunder rules were relaxed. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the view that the learned trial Judge erred in allowing the writ application filed by the writ petitioner. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is allowed and the writ application of the writ-petitioner is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. 10. Pursuant to the direction of this court, Mr. Das Gupta has been served with a copy of the paper book. I agree. Appeal allowed.