Reinstated railway employees’ absence must be converted into admissible leave instead of being declared dies-non.

The Applicant, an Enquiry-cum-Reservation Supervisor with South Eastern Railway, was removed from service on 11.12.2008 following disciplinary proceedings

On appeal, the punishment was modified to compulsory retirement with 80% pensionary benefits on 15.09.2009

The Applicant challenged these orders before the Tribunal (O.A. 301/2010), which quashed the punishment on 30.11.2012, a decision upheld by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta on 26.06.2013

Consequently, the Applicant was reinstated on 04.07.2013, but the intervening period from the date of removal (11.12.2008) to reinstatement (04.07.2013) was treated as dies non

After subsequent litigation (O.A. 350/00339/2014) and a fresh disciplinary order reducing his pay, the Respondents issued the impugned order dated 30.06.2016, maintaining the dies non status for the said period

The Applicant sought to regularize this period by granting leave and admissible arrears under Rule 504(3) of the Railway Establishment Code (IREC)

1. Whether the Respondents were legally justified in treating the period between compulsory retirement and reinstatement as dies non despite the quashing of the original punishment orders

2. Whether the period of absence from duty following the setting aside of a dismissal or removal order must be adjusted against the leave due to the employee’s credit under the Indian Railway Establishment Code

The court primarily relied on the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) Vol. I.

Rule 504(3) stipulates that a reinstated railway servant is entitled to count service prior to dismissal and restore leave due to their credit as of the date of removal

The court further applied Rule 1343 (FR 54) of the IREC, specifically sub-rules (4) and (5), which mandate that where a dismissal or compulsory retirement is set aside, the competent authority must specifically consider the payment of allowances and the treatment of the absence period

Sub-rule (5) provides that if the railway servant so desires, the authority may direct that the period of absence be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible

The Tribunal observed that while the Respondents justified the dies non order based on the "No Work No Pay" principle, they failed to adhere to the statutory mandate of the IREC

The Tribunal noted that once the original orders of removal and compulsory retirement were set aside by judicial intervention, the Applicant's status was restored

A conjoint reading of Para 504(3) and Para 1343 (FR 54) of the IREC indicates that the period of absence should be converted into leave due to the applicant rather than being summarily declared dies non

The Tribunal found that the Respondents committed a legal error by failing to adjust the absence against the leave available to the Applicant’s credit as of 14.12.2008, as permitted under sub-rule (5) of Rule 1343

Consequently, the mechanical application of dies non was held to be in violation of the express provisions of the IREC

The Tribunal held that the Respondents must treat the Applicant’s absence strictly in accordance with Para 1343 (FR 54) of the IREC, allowing for the conversion of the period into admissible leave

The Respondents were directed to grant all consequential benefits to the Applicant within 90 days of the order

No costs were awarded