Allowed¶36

Ku. Samiksha Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jul 2025WPS/1576/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

dies non; major penalty; departmental inquiry; CCA Rules 1966; F.R. 54(1); absence from duty; opportunity of hearing; punitive action; transfer; representation; WPS No. 1576 of 2018; WPS No. 297 of 2016; ICDS Supervisor; Woman and Child Development Department; Kabirdham; Chhattisgarh High Court; Battilal vs. Union of India 2005 (3) MPHT 32 (DB); Rakesh Mohan Pandey. Citable for: declaring a public servant's absence 'dies non' is punitive and amounts to a major penalty that cannot be imposed without departmental inquiry; a dies non order passed straightway without hearing is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 22.01.2017 (Annexure P/1) declaring 11.12.2015 to 08.02.2016 as 'dies non' quashed; writ petition allowed. ¶36

Ku. Samiksha Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order dated 22.01.2017 (Annexure P/1) declaring 11.12.2015 to 08.02.2016 as 'dies non' quashed; writ petition allowed.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 22.01.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 3 declaring the petitioner's absence from 11.12.2015 to 08.02.2016 as 'dies non' is sustainable in law and should be quashed, with a direction to grant benefit of the said period. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

In the present case the authority straightway passed the order declaring the period of absence as 'dies non' without affording the opportunity of hearing.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

To declare the period of absence from duty of a public servant as 'dies non' is punitive in nature and cannot be passed without proceeding departmentally, in view of the procedure laid down under the CCA Rules, 1966.

¶33

Key takeaways

The order dated 22.01.2017 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and is quashed; consequently, the petition is allowed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh HC (Bilaspur), WPS No. 1576 of 2018, decided 02.07.2025 (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.). Service law - 'Dies non'. The petitioner, working as Supervisor (ICDS), was transferred from Sector Dhani Khunta to Sector Bodla-2 vide order dated 03.10.2015; her challenge in WPS No. 297 of 2016 was disposed of on 03.02.2016 with liberty to make a representation; the representation was allowed and the transfer modified, but she could not join service from 11.12.2015 to 08.02.2016. Respondent No. 3 declared that period 'dies non' vide order dated 22.01.2017 straightway, without departmental inquiry or opportunity of hearing. Relying on Battilal vs. Union of India and others, 2005 (3) MPHT 32 (DB) (High Court of M.P., DB), the Court held that declaring absence 'dies non' is punitive in nature, amounts to infliction of a major penalty, and cannot be passed without departmental proceedings under the CCA Rules, 1966. The order dated 22.01.2017 was quashed and the writ petition allowed.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANTTAMRAKAR TAMRAKARDate:2025.07.07 17:49:33 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:29949

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1576 of 2018

¶7

Ku. Samiksha Jain D/o Shri S. C. Jain, Aged About 26 Years Working As Supervisor, ICDS Project Sector Dhanikhuta, Project Chilfi, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Woman And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

The Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Project Officer, Woman And Child Development Department, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

02.07.2025

¶18

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶19

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 22.01.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 3 and direct the respondent no. 3 to grant benefit of period 11.12.2015 to 08.02.2016.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, in the year 2015, the petitioner was working in the post of Supervisor under the respondents. He would further submit that the services of the petitioner

¶21

¶22

were transferred from Sector Dhani Khunta to Sector Bodla-2 vide order dated 03.10.2015 by respondent No. 2. She challenged the said order by filing WPS No. 297 of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.02.2016, whereby she was granted liberty to make a representation and the authority concerned was directed to decide it within a period of 30 days.

¶23

Mr. Verma would further contend that the representation made by the petitioner was allowed and the transfer order was modified and thereafter, she was posted at her earlier place of posting. He would also contend that as the representation made by the petitioner remained pending for a considerable period, she could not join her services from 11.12.2015 to 08.02.2016 and the said period has been declared “dies non” by respondent No. 3. He would pray to quash the order dated 22.01.2017 (Annexure P/1).

¶24

On the other hand, Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶26

The petitioner, who was holding the post of Supervisor at the relevant time in the year 2015, was transferred from Sector Dhani Khunta to Sector Bodla-2 vide order dated 03.10.2015. She preferred a writ petition, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.02.2016. The petitioner was granted the liberty to make a representation and the respondent authorities were directed to decide it within a period of 30 days. The representation so made by the petitioner was allowed and resultantly, the transfer order was modified and the petitioner was permitted to continue her services at her earlier place of posting. On account of the pendency of the writ petition and representation, the petitioner could not join her services from 11.12.2015 to

¶27

¶28

08.02.2016 and respondent No. 3 vide order dated 22.01.2017 declared the said period as “dies non”.

¶29

The High Court of M.P., in the matter of Battilal vs. Union of India and others reported in 2005 (3) MPHT 32 (DB) , held that when the authority directs that the period would be treated as “dies non”, such a period would not count for leave, salary, increment and pension. It is further held that the period which has been declared as “dies non” amounts to infliction of a major penalty and it could not be inflicted without holding the departmental inquiry. The relevant para 3 is reproduced herein-below:-

¶30

“3......When the Authority directs that the period will be treated 'dies-non', it means that continuity of service is maintained, but the period treated as 'diesnon' will not count for leave, salary, increment and pension. In fact, F.R. 54 (1) casts such a duty on the authority. It provides that when a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired is reinstated as a result of appeal or review, the authority competent, to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order-

¶31

(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the government servant for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and

¶32

(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.”

¶33

Thus from a perusal of the law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Battilal’s case (supra) , it would appear that to declare the period of absence from duty of a public servant as dies non is punitive in nature and cannot be passed without proceeding departmentally in view of the procedure laid down under the provisions of the CCA Rules, 1966. In the case at hand, the authority concerned straightway passed the order and declared the period of absence as dies non without affording the

¶34

¶35

opportunity of hearing.

¶36

Taking into consideration the law laid down by the High Court of M.P. in the matter of Battilal (supra) , and the facts of the present case, the order dated 22.01.2017 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and is hereby quashed. Consequently, the instant petition is hereby

¶37

allowed .

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶40

$iddhant

Ku. Samiksha Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Samiksha Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Akanksha Singh Gehalot Vs Antriksh Gehalot

Seikh Aslam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Munni Bai Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nirmal Chandra Sarkar (Died) Through Lrs Vs The Managing Director, Food Corporation Of India

Chandra Shekhar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh