Period between removal and reinstatement, without pay, can be treated as dies non.

The applicant, Pyare Lal, was appointed as a Medical Assistant on April 24, 1981, and retired on June 30, 2011.

He was removed from service on March 15, 1986, after disciplinary proceedings.

This removal was challenged before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 429 of 1987, which on March 10, 1988, substituted the punishment with reinstatement without pay for the removal period and a permanent stop to three future increments.

He was reinstated on April 30, 1988.

The period from March 15, 1986, to April 29, 1988, was declared "dies non" via Office Order No. 663 dated April 30, 1988, and reiterated in another order dated October 19, 2011.

The applicant claims this period counted towards qualifying service, entitling him to 30 years, 2 months, and 6 days of service, including the 3rd MACP and other terminal benefits.

The respondents, however, treated his qualifying service as 28 years and 21 days, excluding the dies non period, and thus denied him the 3rd MACP.

The applicant challenged the orders declaring the period as dies non and sought recognition of the full service period.

1. Whether the impugned orders declaring the period from March 15, 1986, to April 29, 1988, as “dies non” are legally sustainable.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period from March 15, 1986, to April 29, 1988, counted as qualifying service for the purpose of terminal benefits, including the 3rd MACP, leave encashment, gratuity, and pension.

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ACP, or 7 withheld increments, with consequential benefits and interest.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a disciplinary authority or appellate authority, when imposing a lesser punishment after a Tribunal's order, has the full authority to determine how the period between termination and reinstatement should be treated.

It relied on the judgment in Battilal vs. Union of India & Ors. (2005 (3) MPLJ 32), which affirmed that the marking of "dies non" for the period between termination and reinstatement, where a lesser punishment is imposed, is permissible and not restricted to the circumstances mentioned in CCS (CCA) Rule 11.

The Tribunal also considered its own previous order dated March 10, 1988, which specified that the applicant would not receive pay for the period of removal.

The Tribunal analyzed the core dispute regarding the "dies non" declaration, noting that the applicant was initially removed and subsequently reinstated by the Tribunal's order dated March 10, 1988.

This previous order explicitly stated that the applicant would "not get any pay from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement".

The Tribunal referenced Battilal vs. Union of India & Ors., which clearly established the authority of the disciplinary/appellate bodies to treat the interregnum period as "dies non" when a lesser punishment leads to reinstatement, especially when specifically directed regarding the non-admissibility of pay.

Since the Tribunal's earlier order had already disallowed pay for the period, the competent authority's decision to treat it as "dies non" aligns with the directive and applicable rules.

Therefore, the period could not be counted as qualifying service for ACP/MACP or other benefits.

The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the impugned orders.

The impugned orders dated April 30, 1988, and October 19, 2011, which declared the period from March 15, 1986, to April 29, 1988, as "dies non" and excluded it from qualifying service, were found to suffer no legal infirmity.

Consequently, the period in question will not be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of commutation of terminal benefits, including leave encashment, gratuity, pension, or the grant of ACP/MACP.

No order was made as to costs.