IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5218 of 2025 =========================================================

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Versus MANJUBEN JAGDISHBHAI ZALA WD/O JAGDISH V. ZALA & ANR.

=========================================================

Appearance:

MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MS KAJAL L KALWANI(6623) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 =========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Date: 13/03/2026

JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1.

The Union has preferred this petition challenging the order of the CAT, by which the CAT has came to the conclusion that the husband of the first respondent had rendered a total service of 32 years and 6 months, and not 27 years and 5 months as contended by the Railways. The CAT has also granted consequential benefits pursuant to the said order.

2.

These facts are not in dispute.

3.

The husband of the respondent joined Railway Services on 24.12.1979 and was regularized in service from 01.01.1994. During his service, he was charge- sheeted for unauthorized absence for a period of three months, and by an order dated 21.02.1995, he was removed from service.

4.

Being aggrieved by this order of termination, he approached CAT in OA No.576/1998. The said application was disposed of by an order dated 04.04.2003, by which the CAT directed the Railways to reconsider the punishment of removal that had been treated upon the applicant.

5.

Upon reconsideration, the Railways, on 04.08.2003 substituted the punishment of removal from service with reduction of pay to one stage lower in the same time-scale of pay for a period of three years. Pursuant to this order, the applicant came to be reinstated on

19.08.2003.

6.

In the year 2004, the applicant preferred OA No.

374/2004 challenging the decision of the Railways to impose a major penalty and for non-payment of full salary from the date of the dismissal till reinstatement. The Railways had considered the period during which the first respondent was out of service i.e., service rendered by the husband of the first respondent from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement, as dies non. The CAT, by its order dated 27.07.2005, quashed the order by which the employee service was treated as dies non was incorrect and remitted the matter to the respondents to pass an appropriate order in terms of Rule 1344 of IREM.

7.

Being aggrieved by this order, the Union approached this Court in SCA No. 2976/2006. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the Writ Petition and, while so doing, it confirmed the order of the Tribunal insofar as it was related to the intervening period, i.e., from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement, as dies non was confirmed. But the subsequent part of the order of the CAT directing the authorities to pass an appropriate order in terms of Rule 1344 was quashed. More importantly, the Division Bench passed an order in the following terms:-

“We, however, direct that the intervening period shall be treated as leave without pay but the respondent shall be treated as in continuous service for all other purposes including for the purpose of leave, increments and retiral benefits.”

In view of this order, it is clear that the intervening period i.e., period during termination and reinstatement was ordered to be treated as Leave Without Pay, but the railways at the same was also directed to treat it as continuous service for all other purposes, including for the purpose of leave, increments and retiral benefits. The period during which the husband of the first respondent was out of service was therefore required to be treated as continuous service, at least insofar as it is related to retiral benefits, with which we are concerned in this petition.

8.

Pursuant to this order, the Railways proceeded to pa