1 2025:CGHC:45354 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5381 of 2021  Dr. Deepak Ghritlahre S/o Shri M.L. Ghritlahre Aged About 41 Years Posted As Assistant Professor (M.S. Ortho), At Government Medical College Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, R/o R-2/38, Aashirwad Valley, Bodari, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Directorate Of Health Services Mantralaya , Indravati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Under Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Joint Director Directorate Of Health Services Mantralaya, Indravati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. Chief Medical And Health Officer Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04. 09.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside /quashed the order dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Joint Director (A), Directorate of Health Services Chhattisgarh; 10.2 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside /quashed the order dated 04.07.2019 passed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.08 14:53:15 +0530 2 the Under Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department State of Chhattisgarh; 10.3 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the services of the petitioner as continues services and grant the petitioner seniority from the initial date of appointment & other benefits; 10.4 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other order/direction/ relief to petitioner in the nature of mandamus which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, including awarding of costs to him. 10.5 The petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to consider the recommendation made by the Director of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, vide order dated 15.05.2018 (Annexure P-11), which duly recommended treating the period spent by the petitioner during the postgraduate course as extraordinary leave, and further direct the respondents to convert the said period into extraordinary leave in accordance with the recommendation.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer on probation for period of 2 years vide order dated 09.10.2009; his services were regularized vide order dated 16.10.2011. He would further submit that the petitioner was selected for post graduation course of MS (Orthopedics) while he was posted at Primary Health Center, Mungeli, and therefore, he moved an application seeking study leave, and the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Mungeli vide order dated 22.06.2013 relieved him. He would fairly submit that though the application moved by the petitioner was forwarded to the State Government, but it remained pending. He would also submit that the petitioner completed his M.S. Orthopedics course on 11.09.2017, and thereafter, he approached the respondent No. 5 to resume his services and and he was permitted to join. He would contend that the petitioner raised 3 claim of arrears of salary of intervening period and that matter was referred to respondent No. 1. He would further contend that the respondent No. 1 vide order on 04.07.2019 declared period of 3 years and 7 months “dies non”. He would also contend that the petitioner made a representation before the respondent No. 1 on 12.02.2021, and it has been rejected vide order dated 01.03.2021. Mr. Ishan Verma, would further submit that the decision with regard to “dies non” is a major penalty according to the provisions of Rule 10 (v) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short “Rules, 1966”) and such decision was taken without holding any enquiry as provided under the Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966, therefore, the order is bad in law. He would contend that this fact was not considered by the respondent No. 1 and representation was also rejected vide order dated 01.03.2021. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Battilal vs. Union of India and others reported in (2005) 3 MPHT 32 (DB). He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that without prior approval from competent authority, the petitioner joined course of M.S. Orthopedics, and therefore, the period of 3 years and 7 months has been declared dies non by the competent authority. He would further submit that as extraordinary leave or study leave was not granted to the petitioner, therefore, there was no other option to the employer to declare such period as dies non. He would contend that according to the provisions of Rule 42(5) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, the petitioner had not completed 5 years of services; therefore, he was not eligible for grant of 4 extraordinary leave. He would further contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer on 01.10.2009 on probation for period of 2 years and his services were regularized vide order dated 16.10.2011. The petitioner was selected for post-graduation course of M.S. Orthopedics and he moved an application before the Chief Medical and Health Officer for grant of study leave on 15.06.2013. The Chief Medical and Health Officer relieved the petitioner vide order dated 22.06.2013 (Annexure P/12), and therefore, the petitioner proceeded to join his post-graduation course. 6. The petitioner completed the course, and thereafter, resumed his services and he was permitted to join. The petitioner claimed arrears of salary and his claim was referred to the State Government. The respondent No. 1 vide order dated 04.07.2019 declared the period of 3 years and 7 months “dies non” without issuance of any show-cause notice, without holding any departmental enquiry and without giving opportunity of hearing. 7. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Battilal (supra), held that when the authority directs that the period would be treated as “dies non”, such a period would not count for leave, salary, increment and pension and it amounts to infliction of a major penalty and it could not be inflicted without holding the departmental inquiry. The relevant para 3 is reproduced herein-below:- “3......When the Authority directs that the period will be 5 treated 'dies-non', it means that continuity of service is maintained, but the period treated as 'dies-non' will not count for leave, salary, increment and pension. In fact, F.R. 54 (1) casts such a duty on the authority. It provides that when a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired is reinstated as a result of appeal or review, the authority competent, to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order- (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the government servant for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.” 8. Thus from a perusal of the law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Battilal’s case (supra), it would appear that to declare the period of absence from duty of a public servant as “dies non” is major penalty and cannot be passed without proceeding departmentally in view of the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Rules, 1966. In the case at hand, the authority concerned straightway passed the order and declared the period of absence as dies non without affording any opportunity of hearing. 9. The representation was also moved by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1 on 12.02.2021 and it was rejected vide order dated 01.03.2021. In the rejection order dated 01.03.2021, the authority concerned has not considered the fact that the order impugned amounts to major penalty and such penalty cannot be inflicted without holding departmental enquiry and affording proper opportunity of hearing. 10. Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down in the matter of Battilal (supra), the orders impugned Annexure P/1 dated 01.03.2021 and Annexure P/2 dated 04.07.2019 are hereby quashed. 6 11. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant