Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Union Of India vs Moda Ram Jat on 4 April, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:9297-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13679/2020
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Government Of
India, Ministry Of Communication, Department Of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Secretary, Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievances And
Pension, Deptt. Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare,
Loknayak Bhawan, New Delhi-110003.
3. The Director Accounts (Postal), D-1, Jhalanadungari
Jaipur-302004.
4. Chief Postmaster General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur.
5. Superintendent Of Post Offices, Bikaner Division, Bikaner.
6. Inspector Of Posts, Sub Division, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
Moda Ram Jat S/o Late Shri Tiku Ram Jat, B/c-Jat, R/o Vill Po -
Kujjatti, District - Bikaner (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uttam Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
Reserved on 12/02/2025
Pronounced on 04/04/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This civil writ petition has been preferred claiming the
following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully
prayed that this writ petition in the nature of Certiorari
may kindly be allowed. By an appropriate writ order or
direction:-
[2025:RJ-JD:9297-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-13679/2020]
(i) The impugned order dated 23.08.2019 (Annex-1)
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur may kindly be declared illegal and
the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) The original Application filed by the
applicant/respondent may kindly be dismissed.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just
and proper in favour of the petitioners, may kindly be
granted and
(iv) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of
the petitioners."
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 23.08.2019 passed by learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in O.A. No.290/00028/2018, whereby the
petitioners have been directed to consider the case of the
respondent-applicant for grant of pension by counting full service
rendered in Group 'D' cadre.
3. Mr. Uttam Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that respondent-applicant was appointed as
GDSBPM Kujti Post Office BO on 13.03.1976 under Lunkaransar
SO and Bikaner HO. After rendering 27 years of service, the
respondent-applicant was selected in Group 'D' and joined on
21.04.2003 at Lunkaransar Post Office vide appointment order
dated 03.04.2003.
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
the respondent-applicant remained absent from the duty during
the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013 and lastly
submitted a few medical certificates, and claimed sanction of
medical leave on the basis of those certificate, However, the
certificates did not contain the proper information required about
the medical condition of the respondent-applicant. Thus, the said
[2025:RJ-JD:9297-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-13679/2020]
medical certificates were refused to be accepted and consequently,
period of 554 days was ordered to be treated as dies-non by the
competent authority. The respondent-applicant superannuated on
31.07.2013 on attaining the age of 60 years.
3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that after
deducting the period of dies non, the respondent-applicant
rendered 8 years, 9 months & 2 days of service, thus rendering
him ineligible for pensionary benefits under pension rules.
However, on retirement, the service and retirement gratuities
were paid to the respondent-applicant.
3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that repeated
representations were filed by the respondent-applicant to get the
leave sanctioned on one or the other head. The infirmity in the
medical certificates for the prolonged absence however, could not
be condoned, but taking a lenient view, the absence period was
ordered to be dies-non. Learned counsel submitted that no
appeal/ representation against the order of dies-non, passed in
the year 2011, was preferred before the competent authority in
time despite having multiple opportunity to do so, thus the same
cannot be challenged at this belated stage. Learned counsel
further submitted that the leave sanctioning authority is
empowered under Rule 62 of the Postal Manual III to pass such
orders. The Rule 62 of the Postal Manual III reads as under:-
"62. Absence of officials from duty without proper
permission or when on duty in office, they have left the
office without proper permission or while in the office,
they refused to perform the duties assigned to them is
subversive of discipline. In cases of such absence from
work, the leave sanctioning authority may order that the
[2025:RJ-JD:9297-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-13679/2020]
days on which work is not performed be treated as dies
non i.e. they will neither count as service nor be construed
as break in service. This will be without prejudice to any
other action that the competent authorities might take
against the persons resorting to such practices."
3.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the
department may have the sympathy towards the person, but the
same cannot result into statutory right of benefits of pension. He
further submitted that as per Rule 23 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
and Rule 122 of P & T Manual Volume-III, the time limit for appeal
is 45 days but the respondent-applicant submitted his
representation in the year 2017, i.e., after four years of the order
of dies non having been passed.
4. Per Contra, Mr. S.P. Singh, Learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-applicant while disagreeing with the submissions made
by the petitioners submitted that, the respondent-applicant had
completed more than 10 years of service in Group 'D' cadre and
had attained superannuation on completion of 60 years of age on
31.07.2013 and thus, the respondent-applicant rendered 27 years
of service as GDSBPM and thereafter 10 years, 3 months & 10
days service in Group 'D' cadre, therefore, he is entitled to be
granted of pension. He further submitted that non grant of
pension is an independent cause of action.
He also submitted that dies-non was a major penalty and could
not have been granted without holding a departmental enquiry.
4.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-applicant further
submitted that there is no delay on his part to a remedy because
the present cause of grievance is not the order of dies-non, but
rather the pension having not been granted. Moreover, learned
[2025:RJ-JD:9297-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-13679/2020]
counsel submitted that the original document of the Respondent-
applicant have been weeded out and therefore, any further
examination was not possible by the CAT, and thus the benefit was
rightly passed to the employee.
4.2. Learned counsel for the respondent-applicant also submitted
that forfeiting of past service without giving an opportunity to be
heard is in violation of Government of India Sub-rule (2) of Rule
28 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Learned counsel submitted that
the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed in
the case of Gulab Singh Solanki Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (Writ
Petition No.4986/2011), decided on 06.07.2017 and the judgment
of Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in
the case of Vinod Kumar Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors. in
OA No.749/2015 passed on 17.11.2016, support the case of the
present respondent-applicant.
5. Heard counsel for both the parties as well as perused the
judgments cited by the Bar.
6. This Court after considering the facts of the case, particularly
that the respondent is an employee, who was appointed on
13.03.1976 as GDSBPM, and has rendered 27 years of service
before being selected in Group 'D' on 21.04.2003 and further
rendered service for 10 years till his superannuation, finds that
examination of dies-non on merits was not possible because the
record of the respondent-applicant has been weeded out. This
Court also finds that in all respondent-applicant rendered about 37
years of service, though his absence is glaring, but once the
petitioners themselves have chosen to ignore the same by
[2025:RJ-JD:9297-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-13679/2020]
declaring the same as dies-non, they virtually have condoned the
prolonged absence to the extent of having no adverse impact.
7. At this juncture, this court observes that under the present
factual matrix, it is pertinent to determine the nature of dies non,
as the same is the bone of contention between both the parties. It
refers to a period of time that is not counted towards an
employee's length of service, benefits and other entitlements, but
at the same time it preserves continuity of service. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sukhdarshan Singh vs. The State of Punjab
(Civil Appeal Nos. 811-812 of 2012) clarified that dies non is
not a penalty in law.
8. This court in light of the factual matrix of the present case, the
CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 applicable upon the respondent-applicant
and judicial precedent cited above, observes that in the present
case, dies non has been used only as a mode to regularize the
services of the respondent-applicant and to ensure a continuity in
the same for his own benefit and not to cause any adverse impact
to him and therefore can not be considered as a form of penalty.
9. This Court is, however, of the view that once weeding out of
the documents has happened, no fresh examination is possible
regarding applicability of the dies-non and its subsequent impact
on the pension of a person who has served the petitioners for
about 37 years. In case the record was available with the Court,
the issue of particulars and medical leaves which were being
sought along with other possible legal sanctioning of leaves could
have been considered.
10. In light of the aforesaid observation, this Court is of the
opinion that the Learned CAT had rightly arrived at a considered
[2025:RJ-JD:9297-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-13679/2020]
conclusion. Thus, no cause of interference is made out in the
impugned order dated 23.08.2019 (Annex-1) passed by learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench.
11. Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
151-Nirmala
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
