1 2025:CGHC:44756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5299 of 2022  Ramsanehi Dubey S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Dubey, Aged About 66 Years Occupation Retired Ayurved Medical Officer, R/o C/o - Dr. Dubey Gudi Wale, Near Mohanti School, Chantapara, Tilak Nagar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Heath, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Of Ayurved, Yog And Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha And Homeopathy, D.K.S. Campus, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. District Ayurved Medical Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4. Accountant General, Officer Of The Account General, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate For State : Mr. T.L. Bareth, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02. 09.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate order/direction quashing the impugned order 15.7.2022 (Annexure-P/1). 10.2 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate order/direction to the respondent authorities to grant one non added annual increment with 18% per annum and to treat the period commencing from 17.9.2016 to SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.03 17:44:49 +0530 2 9.2.2017 (total 146 days) as service/working period for all purposes including effect on pensionary benefits. The respondents may be directed to pay all consequential benefits also. 10.3 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate order/direction quashing the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 (Annexure P/9)” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was posted to the post of Ayurved Medical Officer and he stood retired from services on 30.06.2021. He would further submit that the petitioner remained absent from service from 17.09.2016 till 09.02.2017 for period of 146 days and that period was declared dies-non by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 28.05.2018(Annexure P/9). He would also submit that representation was made by the petitioner and vide Annexure P/1 dated 15.07.2022, the petitioner was communicated that the decision was taken way back on 28.05.2018 whereby period of 146 days of unauthorized absence was declared as dies-non. He would contend that the decision taken by the respondent No. 1 dated 28.05.2018 is major penalty and no enquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short “Rules, 1966”), therefore order is bad in law. 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). 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner remained unauthorized absent for period of 146 days, and therefore, decision was taken by the 3 competent authority to declare period of absence “dies-non” . They would further submit that the petitioner has approached this Court after four years without explaining delay; therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. 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. It is further held that the period which has been declared as “dies non” 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 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.” 6. 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 4 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. 7. Considering the fact that the period of 146 days from 17.09.2016 to 09.02.2017 has been declared as dies-non by the respondent No. 1 without holding enquiry and without affording opportunity of hearing; therefore, the order Annexure P/1 as well as Annexure P/9 are not sustainable in the eyes of law, consequently, both the orders are hereby quashed. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to compute the pension and arrears of salary of the petitioner accordingly. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant