JUDGMENT S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. - The petitioner, who resigned from the post of Reader, Patna University has prayed for direction on the respondents to pay him salary for the period May, 1990; other arrears prior to 1992; for the period from January, 1993 to June, 1994; gratuity and leave encashment. 2. One of the question to be determined in this case is whether resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service amounting to forfeiture of retirement benefits or not? 3. Admittedly the petitioner was in the services under the respondent-Patna University functioning as Reader, Department of Geology in the Science College, Patna. He resigned from service, which was accepted by the Patna University with effect from 1 st July, 1994. 4. According to the petitioner, after his resignation, the salary for the period from January, 1992 to December, 1992, which was due to him, was paid, but remaining salary for the period aforesaid have not yet been paid. The respondent-Patna University has also not released the gratuity and leave encashment amount till date, in his favour. 5. According to the counsel for the Patna University, the teachers are required to submit a monthly progress report of classes taken/subjects taught, duly countersigned by the Principle of the College or Head of the department, along with salary bill for the purpose of releasing salary of every month as laid down vide circular issued by the Patna University contained in letter no. G/7497 dated 7th October, 1991. Only on receipt of such monthly progress report and salary bill, the salary can be released. The petitioner earlier challenged the aforesaid circular dated 7th October, 1991 with prayer for payment of salary. The said case was disposed of on 13.5.1993, when this Court did not choose to set aside the circular in question and observed that the teaching staff should feel inclined to comply with aforesaid requirement to prevent any malpractice. If there was any difficulty in complying with such requirement, the petitioner is entitled to make representation before the authority for exemption and the appropriate authority should consider the same and make any modification, if it thinks proper. 6. If there was any difficulty in complying with such requirement, the petitioner is entitled to make representation before the authority for exemption and the appropriate authority should consider the same and make any modification, if it thinks proper. 6. So far as retirement benefit of gratuity and leave encashment is concerned, the counsel for the University relied on Article 12 (1) of 'General Condition of Service under 'Chapter I' of the Statute and submitted that the petitioner having resigned from service his past service forfeited and so he is not entitled for such benefit. 7. Before deciding the first question relating to arrears of salary and the effect of circular dated 7.10.91, I would like to discuss the second question relating to forfeiture of past service on resignation. The employees of the University are guided by two statutes, one relating to 'General Condition of Service' and the other relating to 'retirement benefits'. While relevant provision stipulating forfeiture of past service has been laid down under Article 12(1) of Statute relating to 'General Condition of Service', under the heading 'Resignation and Dismissal', such provision relating to forfeiture of past service has been so laid down under Article 14 of the Statute relating to 'Retirement Benefits'. It is, therefore, necessary to take into note the aforesaid provision, as set out hereunder : Article 12(1) of Statute relating to 'General Condition of Service'. "12 (1) - Resignation from service, or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency, not due to age or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service." Article 14 (1) and (vii) of Statute relating to 'Retirement Benefits'. "14(1) - "Qualifying service" means service rendered as a member of the staff of the University in a substantive capacity including period spent on probation. All services rendered in the University on a full time basis, on a temporary or officiating capacity followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or any other post shall count as qualifying service except in respect of periods of service in "work charged" establishment and periods of service paid from "contingencies". (vii) Dismissal or removal from service will entail forfeiture of all past service for purpose of grant of pension/gratuity". 8. From the aforesaid two provisions, it is clear that one is general and the other is specific relating to retirement benefits. (vii) Dismissal or removal from service will entail forfeiture of all past service for purpose of grant of pension/gratuity". 8. From the aforesaid two provisions, it is clear that one is general and the other is specific relating to retirement benefits. As the present case relates to grant of gratuity and leave encashment, two of the retirement benefits, in this case, the specific provision laid down under Article 14 of the Statute relating to retirement benefits will be applicable and not the other one. As Article 14 stipulates forfeiture of all past service for the purpose of grant of pension/gratuity only in the case of dismissal or removal, the authorities cannot forfeit the past service for the purpose of grant of pension/gratuity in the case of resignation simpliciter. The provision of Article 12(1) of Statute relating to 'General Condition of Service' is same and similar to Rule 101 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rule, 1950. However, under Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 101 of the Bihar Pension Rules certain distinction has been made in the matter of resignation simpliciter for further appointment. This would be evident from Rule 101 of Bihar Pension Rules as set out hereunder : "101 (a) Resignation of the public service or dismissal or removal from it for mis-conduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service. (b) Resignation of an appointment (with the approval of the appointing authority) to take up another appointment, service in which counts, is not a resignation of the public service." 9. If the argument advanced by the counsel for the University is accepted then it is to be interpreted that in all cases of resignation the past service of an employee will forfeit, clubbing them with the same class of employees dismissed or removed from service for mis-conduct or other reason. Such interpretation will amount to make the two unequals as equal, as an employee resigned, by way of resignation simpliciter for one or other purpose like employment in other organisation or to take rest in life (like voluntary retirement) will be placed at par with the employees dismissed or removed from service because of stigma. Such interpretation will amount to make the two unequals as equal, as an employee resigned, by way of resignation simpliciter for one or other purpose like employment in other organisation or to take rest in life (like voluntary retirement) will be placed at par with the employees dismissed or removed from service because of stigma. I, therefore, hold that the resignation from service as mentioned under Article 12(1) of the University Statute relating to General Condition of Service, equivalent to Rule 101 (a) of the Bihar Pension Rules entails forfeiture of past service only in such cases where resignation is given for mis-conduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination, as laid down under the provision aforesaid. The aforesaid rule is not applicable in the case of resignation simpliciter, though may be applicable in a case where on receipt of allegation or chargesheet and other criterias mentioned under the rule, a person submits resignation. 10. As in the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioner resigned from service because of misconduct, initiation of any proceeding, allegation, insolvency, inefficiency or failure to pass a prescribed examination, the respondents cannot forfeit the past service of the petitioner to deprive him from the retirement benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment. I, therefore, answer the question aforesaid in negative and in favour of the petitioner. So far as the first question relating to arrears of salary, following the condition as laid down vide circular dated 24.9.91 and 7.9.91 is concerned, the matter stands settled by earlier observation of this court passed in the case of this petitioner in C.W.J.C. no. 12105/92. This Court by its judgment dated 13.5.93 observed that a member of the teaching staff of the University should feel inclined to comply with the requirements, introduced to prevent malpractice. This Court directed the petitioner to comply with the requirements for payment of salary with liberty to represent the authority for exemption on proper ground. 11. The stand of the University that the petitioner, irrespective of aforesaid observation has not submitted the salary bill along with the monthly progress report of classes taken/subjects taught, duly countersigned by the competent authority and so the petitioner is not entitled for arrears of salary for the aforesaid period. 12. 11. The stand of the University that the petitioner, irrespective of aforesaid observation has not submitted the salary bill along with the monthly progress report of classes taken/subjects taught, duly countersigned by the competent authority and so the petitioner is not entitled for arrears of salary for the aforesaid period. 12. The question in that case will be as to what salary an employee will be entitled to, if fails to submit a report in terms with circular aforesaid. 13. The Statute relating to 'General Condition of Service' deals with different types of leave, disciplinary action, apart from other condition of service. If an employee of University fails to submit the required monthly progress report of classes taken/subjects taught then at best the authorities can treat such employee absent from duty. If the period is treated to be absence from duty, then the authorities will have to decide as to how such period of absence to be treated. Whether the period will be treated to be on leave? Then what type of leave? In such case what salary to which such employee will be entitled? If the period is required to be treated as an unauthorised leave, then an enquiry is to be made after notice to the employee to find out the fact whether the delinquent employee was actually unauthorisedly absent from duty or not. Without taking a decision in this respect, the authorities cannot deny the benefit of salary on the principle of no work no pay, there being specific rule laid down in this respect. 14. Accordingly, I hold that the University is liable to take a decision in this respect and bound to determine as to how the aforesaid period of May, 1990; certain other period prior to 1992 and the period from January, 1993 to June, 1994 are to be treated/counted and what salary to which the petitioner will be entitled under the law. 15. I, accordingly, direct the respondents to determine the aforesaid question and to pay the salary of the petitioner to which the petitioner is entitled under the law for the aforesaid period. The University will also release and pay the admitted gratuity and leave encashment amount in favour of the petitioner. If the salary or part thereof in question is curtailed, the respondents will have to give reason and to communicate the same to the petitioner. The University will also release and pay the admitted gratuity and leave encashment amount in favour of the petitioner. If the salary or part thereof in question is curtailed, the respondents will have to give reason and to communicate the same to the petitioner. The benefits are to be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this judgment. 16. The writ petition is allowed, with the aforementioned observations/directions. However, on the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.