Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.

1. While hearing the above writ petition at admission stage, the learned Writ Court (one of us, Magrey J.) was confronted with two different views expressed by two (rather three) different Division Benches of this Court on one and the same point concerning the fall out of treatment of the period of unauthorised absence of a Government servant as dies non on his seniority. The following two questions were, accordingly, framed by the learned Writ Court vide its order dated 04.04.2013 and referred for decision by a larger Bench of the Court:

(i) If the provisions of SRO 80 dated 10.12.1978 (should read as 10.12.1972) and SRO 321 dated 07.12.1995 do not make it impermissible to count the period of unauthorized absence, treated as dies non, towards the seniority, whether the act and factum of treating the period of unauthorized absence as dies non by itself would disentitle the absentee/ employee from counting such period towards his seniority;

(ii) Whether the period of unauthorized absence of the petitioner herein with effect from 01.01.1989 to 06.03.1995 could be dealt with and treated under SRO 321 dated 07.12.1995 and/or SRO 514 dated 22.11.1999, both issued much after the rejoining of the petitioner, or it could only be dealt with and treated under SRO 80 dated 10.12.1972 having been in operation when the petitioner had incurred the liability to punishment for unauthorized absence?

2. First of all, a short resume of the factual background attendant to the petitioner's case in context of which the above referred to questions have arisen.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Veterinary Doctor in the State Animal Husbandry Department on 26.06.1982. He unauthorisedly absented from duty with effect from 01.01.1989 to 06.03.1995 (six years, two months and six days). On joining back, the Government vide order No. 247-ASH of 1995 dated 07.12.1995 treated his period of absence as 'dies non'. According to the petitioner, his service was not subjected to any interruption and, consequently, he was granted two time-bound promotions in the years 2004 and 2010. His seniority on the basis of his total length of service, including the period treated as dies non, was appropriately fixed at serial No. 55 of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons vide final seniority list issued under Government order No. 50-ASH of 2013 dated 27.02.2013. However, subsequently, the Government issued order No. 99-ASH dated 28.03.2013 stating therein that the issue had been examined in detail in accordance with the rules and that it had been felt that inadvertently the import of 'dies non', which included loss of seniority, had not been implemented in the case of the petitioner like similarly placed officers and, consequently, by Government order No. 99-ASH dated 28.03.2013 the petitioner's seniority position was re-fixed and changed from 55 to 273-A.

4. The petitioner challenged the legality of the aforesaid Government order No. 99-ASH dated 28.03.2013 mainly on the ground that his period of unauthorized absence was governed by the provision of Article 163 of the J & K Civil Service Regulations, 1956 as amended vide SRO 80 dated 10.12.1972 and not the one as amended vide SRO 321 dated 07.12.1095 or SRO 514 dated 22.11.1999. Before the leaned Writ Court, the petitioner's learned counsel contended that since he had incurred the punishment for unauthorized absence with effect from 01.01.1989 to 06.03.1995 during the currency and applicability of SRO 80 of 1972 dated 10.12.1972, he could be subjected to the rigors of only that SRO and not the ones contemplated or stipulated by the later SROs, namely, SRO 321 dated 07.12.1995 or SRO 514 dated 22.11.1999. The submission was buttressed by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Zahoor Hussain Zargar v. State of J & K, 2011 (1) SLJ 437, wherein it was held that having incurred the liability to punishment for unauthorized absence during the operation of SRO 80 of 1972, the appellant therein could be