Forfeiture of past service or "dies-non" cannot be imposed without following principles of natural justice.

The applicant’s late husband, Anil Kalita, a railway employee, was compulsorily retired on 10.11.2004.

On 17.04.2008, the Revisional Authority reduced the penalty to a reduction in grade and ordered reinstatement.

Mr. Kalita died on 02.02.2009 while in service.

In a previous litigation (O.A. 425/2015), the Tribunal directed the respondents to fix his pay as per the 6th CPC and regularize his absence as leave without pay.

This was upheld by the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) 5002/2017, except for the relief of compassionate appointment.

Despite these final judgments, the respondents issued fresh orders on 10.05.2019 and 13.05.2019, declaring the period as dies non (non-service) and refusing the full financial benefits previously mandated.

1. Whether the respondent authorities are legally permitted to issue fresh orders of dies non and altered pay fixation after the issues were settled by a final judgment of the Tribunal and High Court.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the implementation of the directions in O.A. 425/2015 regarding pay fixation from 2004-2008 and regularization of the period till the employee's death.

The doctrine of finality of judgments and res integra, noting that once a matter is settled by a superior court, it cannot be reopened by administrative orders.

Rule 2044-A R II (F.R. 54 A) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules regarding the regularization of pay and service upon reinstatement.

The principles established in Dayal Saran Sanan v. Union of India and Shiv Shanker v. Union of India, which establish that forfeiture of past service (dies non) cannot be made without following principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal observed that the respondents were attempting to circumvent a final judicial mandate.

The Gauhati High Court had already upheld the Tribunal’s earlier directions to treat the deceased as reinstated and to fix his pay according to the 6th CPC.

By subsequently issuing orders of dies non and a "non-est" pay fixation in 2019, the respondents acted in "gross violation" of the court's orders.

The Tribunal reasoned that since the High Court judgment was not challenged in a higher forum, it attained finality; therefore, the respondents had no authority to unilaterally deny the consequential benefits through internal administrative memos.

The action of declaring dies non against a deceased employee without procedure was deemed arbitrary and malicious.

The court held that the respondents must strictly comply with the previous judicial directions.

The respondents were ordered to: (i) calculate and fix the deceased husband's pay from 10.11.2004 to 23.04.2008; (ii) regularize the period from 24.04.2008 to 01.02.2009 by adjusting available leave under FR 54(A); and (iii) grant all consequential benefits, including increments and re-fixation of the applicant’s family pension, within four months.