JUDGMENT : Subrata Talukdar, J. 1. The short facts, according to the writ petitioner, are as follows:- That the writ petitioner, who holds a decree holder in Veterinary Sciences, was initially appointed in service under the State of West Bengal and thereafter joined the position of Lecturer at the Bengal Veterinary College (for short BVC). 2. Pursuant to the enactment of the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya Act, 1974 (for short the 1974 BCKV Act or the Act only), the petitioner exercised his option to serve under BCKV as Lecturer. Referring to the several provisions of the 1974 Act, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Udayan Chakravarti, argues that the terms and conditions of service under BCKV of an employee on transfer shall not be less advantageous than the entitlement of such employee immediately prior to the transfer. 3. It is argued that the 1974 Act further provides that a teacher, on completion of 50 years of age and 20 years of continuous service in BCKV, shall have the right to exercise the choice of Voluntary Retirement from Service (for short VRS). 4. However, with the further enactment of the West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences Act, 1995 (for short respectively the University and the 1995 Act only), the services of the employees of BCKV, including that of the petitioner, were placed under the administrative control of the University. The petitioner, therefore claims to protection of his service benefits as granted at BCKV in his present employment under the University. 5. Sometime around August 1997, the petitioner prayed for two months' of Earned Leave (for short EL) and, travelled to the USA. The petitioner claims to have travelled on the basis of a regular leave application submitted to the University and, thereafter in November, 1997 applied for extension of leave. In January, 1998, the petitioner claimed leave salary from the University. However, none of his representations, as noted above, were replied to by the University and, the petitioner finally resumed his post with effect from 29th April, 1998. 6. The cause of action in this writ petition arose with the service of a show cause notice dated 4th May, 1998, issued by the Registrar of the University directing the petitioner to furnish his reply connected to his unauthorized absence from duties and leaving the country without sanction of leave. 7. 6. The cause of action in this writ petition arose with the service of a show cause notice dated 4th May, 1998, issued by the Registrar of the University directing the petitioner to furnish his reply connected to his unauthorized absence from duties and leaving the country without sanction of leave. 7. The show cause notice and his reply were followed by several correspondence between the petitioner and the University. Such correspondence also included within its scope, the charge of unauthorized absence of the petitioner from University duties. 8. Mr. Chakravarti submits that finally by a letter dated 21st September, 1998 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the petitioner expressed his intention to seek Voluntary Retirement from Service (for short VRS) with effect from 31st March, 1999. Learned Counsel points out that such notice of VRS was submitted keeping in mind the mandatory notice period of three months. 9. The petitioner thereafter, on or around October, 1998, that is, after the notice of VRS, again applied for grant of leave. The second application for leave suffered from processing deficiencies on the part of the University since, the petitioner could not intimate the University of his address during the leave period. Finally, the petitioner claims to have retired from service with effect from 31st March, 1999. 10. Connected to his claim for VRS with effect from 31st March, 1999, the petitioner was again show caused by the University for proceeding to a foreign country without taking permission from the University. The petitioner was alleged to have been unauthorizedly absent from the University for the aforesaid period. The petitioner claims, however, to be entitled to receive his retirement dues on the strength of the VRS submitted by him with effect from 31st March, 1999. 11. Since such retirement benefits were not extended to him, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court being W.P. No. 22655(W) of 2005. The said writ application was adjudicated by an Hon'ble Single Bench on 6th October, 2010, by directing the Vice-Chancellor of the University to take a decision in the matter of release of the terminal benefits of the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period. 12. The said writ application was adjudicated by an Hon'ble Single Bench on 6th October, 2010, by directing the Vice-Chancellor of the University to take a decision in the matter of release of the terminal benefits of the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period. 12. In compliance with the solemn order of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 6th October, 2010 and, adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Vice-Chancellor, by his order dated 8th April, 2011, inter alia, concluded that the petitioner shall be deemed to have retired from the service of the University with effect from 31st March, 2002 upon attaining the age of 60 years pursuant to the notice dated 19th November, 2001 and, shall be entitled to pensioner and other terminal benefits from the said date. 13. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner applied for review. Mr. Chakraborty submits that although the petitioner complied with the mandatory notice period while filing his application for VRS, such prayer was illegally not considered by the University. It is pointed out that treating the petitioner to have retired at the age of 60 years as on 31st March, 2002, is an arbitrary act on the part of the University. The ground taken is that the regular notice of retirement issued by the University and dated 19th November, 2001, could not be served on the petitioner and, therefore, such notice is illegal. The order dated 8th April, 2011, which is based on the terms of the notice dated 19th November, 2011, is also consequently illegal. 14. Mr. Chakravarti further submits that the provisions relating to VRS as contained in the 1995 Act have been given illegally ignored by treating the petitioner to have regularly retired with effect from 31st March, 2002. The University has treated the petitioner to be absent from duties which could not be the case since the petitioner applied for VRS, which was not considered in accordance with law. Therefore, a prayer is made in the writ petition for setting aside the order dated 8th April, 2001 and release of the retirement benefits of the petitioner from the date of his VRS notice dated 23rd September, 1998, along with interest till actual disbursement. Therefore, a prayer is made in the writ petition for setting aside the order dated 8th April, 2001 and release of the retirement benefits of the petitioner from the date of his VRS notice dated 23rd September, 1998, along with interest till actual disbursement. The further prayer is made to regularise the service of the petitioner for the period during which he has been treated to be willfully absent and, to also direct payment of compensation in his favour. 15. Mr. Chakravarti also submits that the relevant statutory provisions of the University provide, inter alia, for the VRS to take immediate effect. Relying upon judicial authorities on the point, learned Counsel argues that in the event a Government servant applies for VRS under the Rules, such VRS must be deemed to have already taken effect upon expiry of the notice period. It is explained that the University acted on the VRS notice of the petitioner by subsequently employing persons to posts in equivalent capacity. 16. Reliance is placed in support of the above noted submissions on the authorities as reported in 1999 (4) SCC 293 and 2013 (12) SCC 210 . 17. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner are strenuously opposed by Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri, learned Counsel for the University. Mr. Chaudhuri, ably assisted by Mr. Roy, learned Advocate, submits that the facts relating to the employment of the petitioner under the University are undisputed. Also undisputed is the fact that the petitioner left for USA without obtaining station leave from the University sometime around August, 1997. However, the surrounding facts of the present adjudication are as follows. 18. That the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on the 5th of February, 1998, as to why action should not be taken against him for unauthorized absence. The show cause notice and, the correspondence following such show cause notice, ultimately resulted in the petitioner filing his joining report on 29th April, 1998. 19. The joining report was sympathetically considered by the Vice-Chancellor, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not be entitled to withdraw any salary for the period from 2nd August, 1997 to 28th April, 1998. 20. The proceedings relating to the unauthorised absence of the petitioner subsequently led to the filing of the application for VRS by the petitioner to take effect from 31st March, 1999. 21. 20. The proceedings relating to the unauthorised absence of the petitioner subsequently led to the filing of the application for VRS by the petitioner to take effect from 31st March, 1999. 21. The University, upon noticing the erratic and indisciplined conduct of the petitioner connected to the discharge of his duties, resolved to take action by issuing a charge-sheet on 3rd April, 2000. The charge-sheet was issued both to his residential address in the State of West Bengal and, to his address of stay in USA. 22. Again, however, taking notice of the fact that the petitioner would have retired from regular service on attaining the age of 60 years with effect from 31st March, 2002, the University did not proceed with the disciplinary action. The petitioner, in the meantime, proceeded to carpetbomb the University with correspondence connected to receipt of his retirement benefits placing emphasis on his last application for VRS, culminating in the solemn order of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 6th of October, 2010 directing the Vice Chancellor of the University to take a reasoned view on the terminal benefits to be released in favour of the petitioner. 23. The Registrar of the University thereafter requested the petitioner to submit necessary documents for processing the release of his terminal benefits. However, according to learned University Counsel, the petitioner did not cooperate with such request. Therefore, the Provident Fund dues of the petitioner were settled for disbursement by the University maintaining the preferred option of the petitioner. 24. The petitioner, accordingly, became eligible to receive benefits under the CPF Scheme instead of the revised GPF Scheme. The petitioner was communicated to take steps for withdrawal of his CPF, as accrued, both from BCKV and the University, with admissible interest. However, in the meantime, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 8th of April, 2011 and, insisted upon considering his entitlement to VRS. 25. Mr. Chaudhuri argues that in law for VRS to take effect there must be a Scheme adopted by the University and, any incumbent desirous of obtaining VRS must apply under such Scheme. However, the University, at present does not have any Scheme for VRS and, therefore, the question of accepting such claim of the petitioner does not arise. 26. In support of the above noted proposition, Mr. However, the University, at present does not have any Scheme for VRS and, therefore, the question of accepting such claim of the petitioner does not arise. 26. In support of the above noted proposition, Mr. Chaudhuri relies upon the authority as reported in 2005 (6) CHN 802. 27. Also relying upon the authority of AIR 2004 SC 2066 , Mr. Chaudhuri argues that the concept of VRS and resignation are different in law. Mr. Chaudhuri submits that all steps have been taken in accordance with the University Statutes. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any other or further benefits beyond the statutory permissible limits. 28. The petitioner has been sympathetically treated by the University which has not carried forward the disciplinary action connected to his alleged unauthorised absence in a foreign country. In the absence of any Scheme for VRS adopted by the University, the petitioner cannot claim to be granted such benefit as a matter of right. The petitioner is ill-advised not to receive his retirement benefits at the end of regular service upto 60 years of age as communicated by the Vice-Chancellor's decision dated 8th April, 2011. 29. Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court finds that the nature of disputes sought to be raised by the petitioner involve several disputed questions of facts. This Court must notice that the period of leave claimed by the petitioner while abroad, has been treated to be in the nature of unauthorized absence by the University. 30. The plethora of facts and counter-facts essentially connected to a contract of employment qua the parties and emanating from the correspondence on both sides require, to the mind of this Court, a detailed fact finding enquiry. Such detailed fact finding enquiry must be in compliance with the rules governing the University. 31. Having regard to the authority of In Re: State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M.K. Jose reported in 2015 (9) SCC 433 , this Court is satisfied that in facts of the present case it is limited by its jurisdiction to engage itself in a resolution of the contentious evidence sought to be relied upon by the parties. Paragraph 14 requires therefore to be illustratively reproduced:- "9. vs. M.K. Jose reported in 2015 (9) SCC 433 , this Court is satisfied that in facts of the present case it is limited by its jurisdiction to engage itself in a resolution of the contentious evidence sought to be relied upon by the parties. Paragraph 14 requires therefore to be illustratively reproduced:- "9. The Appellate Bench on the basis of the said report came to hold that the order of termination was founded on erroneous facts inasmuch as the competent authority had opined that more than 50% of the work remained to be done. The Division Bench opining that as there was a factual defect, which was evident from the commission's report, the order of termination of contract was liable to be quashed and accordingly axed the same. After quashing the same, the High Court directed the Superintending Engineer, PWD, (Roads and Bridges) to consider and dispose of the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the contractor of being heard. It also directed that the Commission's report and the Engineer's report and the accounts shall be produced by the contractor before the competent authority who shall take the same into account before taking final decision in the matter. After so directing, the High Court eventually ruled that: "Since Exhibit P15 order is passed on incorrect data and since that data was found to be incorrect by appointing Joint Commissioners, we are of the view that the Government should bear the expenses of the Commissioners and expenses of the Engineer in submitting the reports. Before conducting a final hearing, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- shall be paid by the first respondent to the appellant/writ petitioner. Taking into account the work done by the Engineer, we think that an additional remuneration of Rs. 5,000/- should be paid to the Engineer. The appellant/writ petitioner shall pay the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the Engineer within 15 days and proof thereof shall be produced by the appellant before this Court."" 32. This Court is also of the view that in the absence of a Scheme for VRS, merely on the application of the petitioner, cannot ipso facto accrue a vested right in his favour. On this point this Court is persuaded to accept the view taken by learned Counsel for the University. This Court is also of the view that in the absence of a Scheme for VRS, merely on the application of the petitioner, cannot ipso facto accrue a vested right in his favour. On this point this Court is persuaded to accept the view taken by learned Counsel for the University. This Court further notices that the retirement dues of the petitioner, who has now attained the age of 75 years, is willing to be disbursed by the University by treating his regular retirement with effect from 31st March, 2002. 33. This Court reiterates its position that the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition for regularisation of leave for the period between 1st October, 1998 to 7th of October, 1998, along with regularisation of his absence from 2nd August, 1997 to 28th April, 1998, as well as payment of his salaries for the period between 1st August, 1997 and 1st October, 1998 - all claims being hotly disputed by the University - lie in the first instance within the domain of the administrative authority, failing which, only a palpable error can be corrected in writ jurisdiction to restore any established legal right of the petitioner. 34. Accordingly, while no relief can be extended to the writ petitioner, it shall be open to the petitioner to receive his retirement amounts and benefits as payable to him treating his date of regular retirement as 31st March, 2002 in terms of the Vice-Chancellor' order dated 8th April, 2011. 35. Since, in the backdrop of the above discussion, this Court expresses its affirmation of the stand taken by the University that the petitioner, being ill-advised to continue with the lis in the backdrop of his own conduct requiring justification with his employer, notwithstanding the long pendency of the legal battle, no interest can be awarded in his favour at the present stage. The University shall, however, release his dues as directed above, not later than a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 36. W.P. No. 6313(W) of 2012 stands accordingly dismissed. 37. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.