s IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) os WRIT PETITION(S) N0. ^^P /2009. PETITIONER: Shashi Kuinar Dwevedi, son of S.H.Dwevedi, aged about 53 years, working as Sorting Assistant, HRO, Raipur, resident of 57, Vivekanand Colony, Raipur, Tahsil and Dsitrict Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus RespQndents 1. The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Postal Departnient, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. ^KQ// ^/^^' ^w /^•^ ^^ .<^^\ v/ 1. The Director, Postal Service, " Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhatdsgarh. ^ ^. The Superintendent, Railway Mail -' Service, Raipur Division, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2.2-^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE(^2^SF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B: Appellant: Respondents: Hon'ble Shrt I.M. Quddusi. Hon'ble Shti Prashant Kuinar Mishra, CS) Wrlt Petition No. 4299 /2009 Shastii Kumar Dwevedi Vs. The Union oflndia aad two otheES iiiWiiil Appearauce: Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, couasel for the petitioner. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Assistant Solicitor Geneial, for the respondents. WRIT PETITIOB UITOIBR ARTICLB 2260FTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (07.05.2010) Per I.M. OUDDUSI, J Heard. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30,04.2006 passed by the Central Admiaistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, ia O.A.No.730/2006 whereby the Origuial AppUcation was dismissed on fhe ground of delay and laches as also on inerits. 3. By filing the writ petition., fhe petitioner has prayed for foUowiug relief(s): 10.1 That fbe HonTble Court inay kindly be pleased to order as to caU entire record from. the of&ce of fhe respondents for perusal aad consideration. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Coiut be pleased to issue aa appropriate writ or direction setting aside the order passed by Central Administrative Tribuual, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, Aimexure P/ l.dated 30.04.2006. 10.3 That fhis HouTile Court inay kindly be pleased to issue a direction to fhe respondents to review the gf KiB @BB dies nou/LWP period as quaUfymg period of service aad accordingly the nanie of the petitioner niay kmdly be placed at appropriate place ia TBOP/BCR scheine and aU consequential benefits iD.cluding iacreinents, proinotion, seniority fixation ofpay aad arrears fhereofbe graated to fhe applicant. 10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kiudly be pleased to graitt auy ofher relief as it niay deeins fit aud appropriate. 10.5 Cost ofthe petition. A perusal offhe reliefc]ause shows that the petitioner had to get the period of absence as qualifyiag service and similnr relief was sought by fhe petitioner ia O.A.No.730/2006 before fhe Tribuiial also, which reads as under: "2}........., to review fhe dies-non/LWP period from 14.04.1981 to 03.11.1981 (82 days) aad period from 29.10.1984 to 05.11.1984 (Sdays) and fhe said period niay kindly be treated as qualtfyiag period aad accordingly the name of the applicant luay kindly be placed at appropriate place in TBOP/ BCR Scheine aad all consequential benefits iacludiag incienients, proiiiotion seniority, fixation of pay and arrears there ofbe granted to the applicaaf Brief facts of the case are fhat fhe petitioner was iaitiaUy appoiuted as Priinaiy Teacher ia the Ministry of Labour aad Rehabilitadon. After aboUtion of RehabUitation Departm.ent at Raipur, he was declared surplus aad was redeployed on 31.07.1980 as Postal Assistaat/Sortiug Assistaut in fhe office of PMG, Bhopal. Accordiag to fhe petitioner, after his redeploym.ent, he had to work rouad the clock in. Iiis present departtueiit aud he fell ffl on various occasions and was coinpeUed to take rest on advice of inedical attendaat. He went to Mumbai on several occasions for his trcatiuent and gSSss'ss'f 6. ,?? froiu thne to tuae aud submitted medical certi&cates to fhe of&ce of PMG, Bhopal fbr regularization of his absences but the respondent aufhorities regularized ttie period of petitioner's absence on inedical certificate as dies-non without seekuig the petitioner's explanation. The petitioner recenfly came to kaow that his absence period which has been regularized as L.W.P. and dies-non has been counted as un-qualifying service aad orders of petitioner placement Dnder TBOP aad BCR scheme has been issued accoidiugly for which the petitioner has been coinpeUed to bear not oiily heavy inonetaiy loss but also deprived of his promotion aad seuiority, iucreiaents and other benefits. In this regard, fhe petitioner submitted a representation. However, the respondents iastead of considenag his representation, by letter dated 26.10.2004 iaformed fhe petitioner that the period as shown ia the representatiou dated 23.09.2004 had been regularized by the fhen Superuitendent, which caanot be changed at present i.e. ater lapse of about 23 yeara. The persons juniors to the petitioner have been pronioted but fhe petitioner has been deprived of his promotion because fhe LWP aad dies non period has been treated as un-qualtfyin^ service aad because of this reason the petitioner has been placed below his jimiors. According to the petitioner, fhere was no wiUful absence froin. his duty. Leanied couasel for the petitioner has submitted that no opportuiuty was given before counting the period of absence as uii-qualifyiag service. There is no speakiug order passed against fhe petitioner and only by couiituig his services, he Ifflli'iilMil ,-.'-i^, .'*",,f,*-'^ ''%> /i ILJ "I Jl ~!^9h a ""*s S ^ •.•.•••-v "•.---).•' ^ 10. was not given auy break in service but only his absence period was treated as dies non. Rule 62 of Central Civil Services (Classi&cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as adopted in Postal & Telegraph Maaual (Volunie 3) is relevant here which reads as under: 62. Absence of officials froin duly without proper permission or when on duty ia office, they have left the ofSce without proper permission or while iu fhie office, they refused to perfonn the duties ass^ned to theni is subversive of discipUne. In cases of such absence Iroiu work, the leave sanctioning authority niay order that fhe days on which work is not performed be treated as dies non, i.e. they wffl neither count as service aor be construed as break in service. This wiU be without prejudice to any ofher action fhat the coinpetent aufhorities inight take agauist the persons resorting to such practices." In fhe iastaat case, no action as nientioned above, Taas been taken under ffcie provisions of Rule 62 as quoted above, but only absence fi-om. duty was treated as dies-non aad the iiiis- behaviour ofabsence period is of6 inonths. Leamed Solicitor General has subinitted fhat iu calculafms such a period, shifiing of m.crem.ents coines to onfy 8 days, which is veiy negl^ible. Anyhow, in view of fhe facts and circuinstaaces, we do not find aay good ground to iaterfere ia the icapugned order passed by the tnbunal. The writ petition is inisconceived aad is, therefore, disnussed. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge