1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7090/2007. : : Ashutosh Katara Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 16.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Ms. Neetu Bhansali for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the charge-sheet dated 9.8.2004 and order dated 16.3.2005, by which the period of absence of the petitioner from 23.5.1995 till 4.6.1999 was forfeited in terms of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1958 and subsequent order dated 16.5.2006 by which the aforesaid order dated 16.3.2005 was modified and the direction for forfeiture of the aforesaid period was altered to say that such period shall be treated as 'dies non'. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even though the petitioner has been reinstated in service and has also been promoted on the post of UDC by order dated 2 5.6.2007 against the vacancies of 2003-2004 so far he is being paid at the minimum scale of that post. He has neither been paid benefits of revised pay scale nor increments. It was argued that respondents rescinded the order by which the period of absence was forfeited and decided to treat such period as 'dies non'. The respondents could only withheld the salary and other monthly benefits for such dies non but such period would nevertheless form part of the service and the petitioner right from the date of his initial appointment would be deemed to have continuously served the respondents till date entitling him to revised pay scale and increments etc. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that since the petitioner was willfully absent for the aforesaid period i.e 2.1.1997 to 29.1.1997, the said period was rightly treated as dies non. Consideration of the arguments and reply does not indicate as to why when the respondents have treated the period as dies non. such period could not be treated as part of service and why the petitioner should be deprived the benefits of revised pay scale and increments for all this periods. There is no justification why the respondents for not granting him revised pay scale and the increments. It was choice of the disciplinary authority as to what kind of penalty 3 should be awarded to the petitioner for his willful absence for the aforesaid period. Once the disciplinary authority had chosen not to award any other penalty except to treat the period as dies non, the petitioner cannot be denied other admissible benefits. Having regard to the facts of the case, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of revised pay scale and increments to the petitioner and pass appropriate order in that behalf within two months from the date copy of the judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.35.