Pre-removal and post-reinstatement service must be consolidated for pension, excluding dies-non periods.

The petitioner joined Coal India Limited in 1982 and was removed in 2000 for unauthorised absence.

The Supreme Court set aside the removal and directed his reinstatement without back wages; Coal India treated the intervening period as “dies-non”.

The petitioner received pension for his pre-removal service and, after superannuation, a revised pension based only on his post-reinstatement service.

He sought a consolidated pension calculation including both periods of actual service, but excluding the dies-non period.

Respondents also challenged the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction.

1. Whether the petitioner’s service before removal and after reinstatement should be aggregated for pension calculation, excluding the period treated as dies-non.

2. Whether the Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition concerning the petitioner’s pension.

The Court relied on the principle that a period treated as “dies-non” may preserve continuity of service while being excluded from qualifying service for pension, as discussed in Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P., 2007 SCC OnLine MP 259, and Battilal v. Union of India, 2005 SCC OnLine MP 676.

It also considered the reinstatement order, which expressly treated the intervening period as dies-non.

On territorial jurisdiction, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Civil Appeal No. 3630 of 2020 that part of the cause of action may arise where a pensioner receives pension and experiences its stoppage or impairment.

The Court held that the petitioner’s employment with Coal India Limited constituted one continuous service relationship and could not be divided into separate services merely because he had been removed and later reinstated.

The dies-non direction excluded the intervening absence from pensionable service, but did not justify disregarding the petitioner’s actual service before removal when calculating his consolidated pension.

The Court also considered the place at which pension was received relevant to territorial jurisdiction, applying the Supreme Court’s approach to cause of action in pension matters.

The authorities were directed to complete the exercise within eight weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of.