HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14997 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 25.03.2025 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ('Tribunal'), whereby the Original Application ('OA'), filed by the deceased Hubraj Ram, now represented by his legal representatives, has been allowed and order dated 26.07.2013 passed by the petitioners, whereby it was ordered that the period 11.08.2006 till 18.09.2008 shall be treated as dies-non, has been set aside and further the orders passed in consequence to the said order have also been set aside and the competent authority has been directed to re-decide the treatment of period between his removal and reinstatement afresh in light of FR54 and pass consequential orders. The exercise was directed to be completed within a period of three months. 2. The employee-Hubraj Ram, was ordered to be compulsorily retired pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings by order dated 24.07.2006. An appeal was preferred to President of India and by appellate order dated 29.08.2008, he was ordered to be reinstated with modified punishment of penalty of deduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for one year with cumulative effect and it was ordered that the period of absence from duty i.e. from date of compulsory retirement to the date of reinstatement may be regularized. The respondent resumed the duty on 19.09.2008. The period between compulsory retirement and reinstatement was left undecided and the respondent ultimately on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 30.06.2011. He was not paid any retiral dues Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Union of India and 5 others .....Petitioner(s) Mrs. Dharma Devi and 4 others .....Respondent(s) and was asked to apply for leave for the period between 11.08.2006 to 18.09.2008. Whereafter, the order impugned dated 26.07.2013 was passed ordering for treating the period as dies-non. 3. Feeling aggrieved the OA was filed. 4. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and noticing the provisions of FR 54 applicable in the present circumstances, came to the conclusion that the petitioners herein as well as the respondents were equally responsible for not giving effect to the order passed by the appellate authority and making payment of pension as well as salary to the respondents, consequently, allowed the OA and passed the order, as indicated hereinbefore. 5. The present petition has been filed on 14.09.2025 i.e. after the expiry of the period granted by the Tribunal for complying with the directions issued by it inter alia seeking to question the order passed. 6. Submissions have been made that as under FR 54, the deceased employee was required to file an application for regularization of the period and no such application was filed by him during his lifetime, passing of order of dies-non was justified and, consequently, the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 8. Undisputed facts are that the respondent was ordered to be compulsorily retired which order was set aside by the appellate authority and direction was given for regularizing the period between the date of compulsory retirement and reinstatement, however, apparently neither the petitioners nor the respondent took notice of the said aspect and no order was passed. The respondent on attaining the age of superannuation, when sought pension, the same apparently triggered the petitioners in seeking to take action and declare the period as dies-non only on account of the fact that the respondent had not applied in terms of the FR 54. 9. In the admitted circumstances, wherein specific direction was given by WRIA No. 14997 of 2025 2 the appellate authority and the petitioners were as well bound to follow the said direction, the mere fact that the respondent did not apply, cannot be taken as a ground for the purpose of not complying with the provisions of FR 54 for the purpose of regularizing the period. Once a direction was to regularize the period, the same could not have been declared as dies- non by the petitioners. 10. In view thereof, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 11. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. It would be required of the petitioners to comply with the directions with utmost expedition now. October 14, 2025 Jyotsana/Mukesh Pal WRIA No. 14997 of 2025 3 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad