IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 7559/2008 Decided on:22.6.2010 _____________________________________________ Prem Lal. …Petitioners. Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He furnished the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. It appears from the record that on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner, order of compulsory retirement was withdrawn and the petitioner was reinstated. He resumed his duties. However, the period from the date of his compulsory retirement till his reinstatement has been treated as “dies non”. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 The Court is of the considered view that once the representation of the petitioner has been accepted and he has been reinstated, the period from the date of his compulsory retirement till his reinstatement ought to have been treated as “leave of kind due”. This will settle the equities between the parties. Order Accordingly. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-10 dated 11.7.1998 is modified to the extent that the period from the date of compulsory retirement till the reinstatement of the petitioner shall be treated as “leave of kind due” instead of “dies non”. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 22.6.2010 *awasthi*