Benefit of Kramonnati cannot be granted if the underlying punishment of 'dies non' is restored.

The respondent, Hari Mohan Sharma, was removed from service on 15.12.1981 following a departmental inquiry where he was found guilty.

On 06.02.1988, the State Government reinstated him but deferred the decision regarding his period of absence.

On 18.10.2005, the State treated the period from 1981 to 1988 as dies non.

The respondent successfully challenged this dies non order in W.P. No. 1257/2006, where the Single Judge held that such a penalty required a full inquiry.

Consequently, in W.P. No. 2226/2006, the Single Judge directed the State to consider the respondent's seniority and kramonnati benefits from 25.01.1974.

Meanwhile, in a parallel proceeding (W.A. No. 3128/2024), a Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s findings and restored the dies non order, concluding it was part of the original full-fledged inquiry.

Whether the respondent is entitled to seniority and kramonnati benefits from 25.01.1974 given the restoration of the dies non order by the Division Bench.

Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

The penalty of dies non (days not counted) is valid if it is the culmination of a full-fledged departmental inquiry rather than a summary proceeding.

The court followed the doctrine of "continuity of proceedings," establishing that subsequent orders regarding the treatment of absence, if linked to an original inquiry where guilt was proven, do not require a fresh de novo inquiry.

The court reasoned that the Single Judge's order in W.P. No. 2226/2006 was entirely predicated on the assumption that the dies non order had been legally extinguished.

The Division Bench in W.A. No. 3128/2024 clarified that the dies non order was actually valid because it was issued in continuation of the 1981 departmental inquiry where the respondent's guilt was established.

The court noted that the State Government’s 1988 reinstatement order did not set aside the findings of guilt, but merely modified the punishment while specifically reserving the right to decide on the period of absence.

Since the dies non status was restored, the "basic foundation" for granting the respondent seniority and consequential benefits from 1974 no longer existed.

The Division Bench set aside the order dated 16/10/2024 passed in W.P. No. 2226/2006, concluding that since the order of dies non has been restored, the claim for seniority and kramonnati benefits based on the quashing of that period cannot be approved. The Writ Appeal was allowed.