CWP No.5441 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5441 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 25-02-2011 Bhim Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS Home Secretary, State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Harish Mehla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner prays that he has been unduly deprived of the increment to which he was entitled to as per rule 10, which is extracted herebelow:- “10. Date of next increment in the revised pay structure:- There will be uniform date of annual increment, viz 1st July of every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July will be eligible to be granted the increment. The first increment after fixation of pay on 01.01.2006 in the revised pay structure will be granted on 01.07.2006 for those employees also for whom the date of next increment was between 1st July, 2006 to 1st January, 2007.” The reason for declining the said benefit is that the petitioner while undergoing recruit basic course on 11.2.2006 absented himself for 1 CWP No.5441 of 2010 (O&M) 2 day 6 hours and 10 minutes. This period was treated as leave without pay. The petitioner did not assail the order of the competent authority but filed a representation praying that this period be treated as period of qualifying service for consideration for the grant of benefit of the increment as per Rule 10. The representation has since been rejected by virtue of order dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure P-4) and this period of one day which was treated as leave without pay has been construed by the respondents as break in service so as to dis-entitle the petitioner for the said benefit. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this period could not have been excluded from the qualifying service and it cannot be treated as break in service and thus the interpretation placed by the respondents is incorrect. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has justified the exclusion of this period for the grant of benefit of the increment. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute on facts that the petitioner did remain absent for one day which period was treated as leave without pay. But I am of the opinion that such leave without pay and that too for solitary day cannot be construed to be break in service for the purposes of considering the qualifying service of the petitioner. For all intents and purposes and specially for the grant of monetary benefits such as increment, pension etc. this period cannot be excluded from the period of qualifying service. This Court in case titled as Bodh Raj vs. State ofHaryana and anr reported as 1972 SLR 475 has observed as under:- CWP No.5441 of 2010 (O&M) 3 “Under this rule, the order that could be passed while refusing the leave is that the period during which the petitioner remained absent from duty shall be treated as “absence from duty without leave”. Absence from duty without leave does not necessarily mean break in service of the Government employee whose leave has been refused.” Having regard to the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The petitioner is thus held entitled to the increment. February 25, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge