Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23728-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2174 of 2025 Petitioner :- Union of India and 4 others Respondent :- Sheo Nath Ram Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranay Krishna Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 8.8.2024 passed in Original Application No. 330/00715/2014 whereby the Tribunal has partly set aside the order dated 22.7.2011 to the extent the period between imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement till the same was substituted with reduction in grade has been directed to be treated dies non. 2. The Original Application was filed against order dated 22.7.2011 by the respondent whereby, he was visited with major penalty of reduction to minimum pay scale for a period of three years with cumulative effect and the period wherein he remained out of service was ordered to be treated as dies non. 3. The respondent was working as Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk when he was imposed with a major penalty of compulsory retirement on 15.04.2008 by the disciplinary authority. Appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved of the said punishment, the respondent filed the Original Application No. 763 of 2008 which came to be allowed by order dated 19.5.2011 and the order of appellate authority was quashed. The appellate authority was directed to reconsider the case with reference to quantum of punishment. The appellate authority by order dated 22.7.2011, modified the order of punishment of compulsory retirement into reduction to minimum pay scale of Rs.4500 - 7000 for a period of three years with cumulative effect and the period the respondent remained out of service was directed to be considered as dies non. 5. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the direction by the appellate authority to treat the period as dies non was not justified in view of the judgement in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab & others : (2002) 9 SCC 492 and consequently, set aside the order dated 22.7.2011 only to the extent that the period was directed to be treated as dies non and directed that the petitioner be treated in service only for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and would not be entitled to back wages. 6. Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order impugned before it. 7. Submission has been made that it was not a case where the respondent was fully exonerated, in fact, he was visited with penalty and therefore, the judgement in the case of Gurpreet Singh (Supra) had no application and that the order impugned therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 9. The undisputed facts are that the respondent was visited with penalty of compulsory retirement and after the Tribunal intervened, the same was replaced with penalty of reduction to minimum pay scale for three years with cumulative effect, however, the appellate authority also ordered that the period the respondent remained out of service would be treated as dies non. 10. The fact situation, from the above emerges that based on the order passed imposing penalty of compulsory retirement, the respondent went out of service and once the punishment of compulsory retirement was replaced with that of reduction in the grade, the respondent came back in service. Once the respondent came back in service, the period spent between the date of compulsory retirement on 15.04.2008 to 22.7.2011 was required to be dealt with, which has been ordered to be treated as dies non. 11. There appears to be no justification for ordering that the period shall be treated as dies non inasmuch as besides the fact that before ordering that the period should be treated as dies non, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the respondent and as has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Gurpreet Singh (Supra), the respondent would be entitled to continuity in service, once reinstatement takes place after the order of compulsory retirement has been set aside. The relevant portion of the judgement reads as under : "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the materials on record, we fail to understand how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside the part of the impugned order. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which was given by the lower appellate court taking into account the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable length of time. That part of the decree denying the arrears of salary stands affirmed and this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above." (emphasis supplied) 12. In view of above fact situation, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error in setting aside the direction limited to the extent of treating the period as dies non and confining the same for pension and pensionary benefits. 13. In view of above, no case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 nd (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad