IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16676 of 2010 Dr. (Smt.)Shobha Rani Sahay w/o of Shri Vijay Kr. Sahay, resident of Savitri Sadan, Kadam Kuan P.S. Kadam Kuan District- Patna 800003 earlier working as Asst. Teacher, A.T.P. school, Patna Jn. Under E.C. Railway ..... Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 2. Joint Director Estt (General), Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 3. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place, N. S. Road, Kolkata 700001 4. Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur 5. General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur 6. Divisional Railway Manager East Central Railway, Danapur 7. Works Manager, Railway Workshop, Liluah .....Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Railway: Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate ---------- 2 01-10-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railways. For the period 10-4-1988 to 4-3-1999, that is, for about 11 years the petitioner, a Primary School Teacher in Eastern Railway was absent from duty. After many developments, she was allowed to continue in service and the proceeding against her came to an end but the issue remained as to how the period of absence was to be treated. The Railway authorities have taken a stand that she was on unauthorized absence for the whole period and as she had put in less than three years of temporary service when she absented herself from duty, 2 the entitlement of any benefit deserved to be determined in terms of service rules. Ultimately, the matter was decided by the railway Board vide order contained in annexure-13 dated 6-1-2003 and the same was communicated by annexure-14. As per decision by the Railway Board on account of circumstances explained by the General Manager, Eastern Railway the Board directed for treating the entire period for absence, that is, from 10-4-1988 to 4-3-1999 as “dies non” in relaxation of the rules. It was clarified that this period will not be treated as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the authorities, particularly, the Railway Board should have treated the period in question to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. On the other hand, the stand of the Railway Board is that as per rules such benefits could not be extended to the petitioner but in relaxation of rules the petitioner has been allowed continuity of service by applying the principle of “dies non” in respect of long period of unauthorized absence. 3 In our view, the Railway Board appears to have already taken a lenient view in the matter. We find no good reason to interfere in the matter and to take a different view than that of learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna which has dismissed O. A. No. 43/2005 preferred by the petitioner by the impugned order. As a result the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No costs. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)