An Exposition of 'Dies Non Without Break in Service' under Indian Service Law

Introduction

The concept of 'dies non' in Indian service jurisprudence is a critical administrative tool used to address periods of unauthorized absence or other specific circumstances where an employee's service for a particular duration is not to be reckoned for certain benefits, yet without causing a formal 'break in service' that could lead to more severe consequences like forfeiture of past service. This article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of the principle of "dies non without break in service," drawing upon statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements primarily from the provided reference materials. It will explore the meaning, implications, procedural requirements, and the often-debated impact of such orders on various service emoluments and conditions.

Conceptual Framework of Dies Non

The term 'dies non' is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase 'dies non juridicus,' meaning a day on which no legal business is transacted or which is not reckoned for a particular purpose (Deobrat Sahay v. Coal India Limited, 2011; Nazir Ahmad Baba v. State of J&K, 2017). In service law, it signifies a period that is not counted for specific service benefits.

Circumstances Leading to the Imposition of Dies Non

An order of dies non is typically passed in situations of unauthorized absence from duty. The Government instructions noted under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, as referred to in Battilal v. Union Of India (2005), clarify that marking of dies non is permissible in circumstances such as: (a) when an official remains absent from duty without prior information, (b) when on duty in office, the official leaves office without proper permission, or (c) when an official remains in office but refuses to perform assigned duties. The Supreme Court in State Of Punjab v. Dr. P.L Singla (2008) dealt with unauthorized absence, reinforcing that subsequent administrative actions like granting extraordinary leave do not automatically condone the misconduct of unauthorized absence, which often forms the basis for treating a period as dies non.

General Implications of an Order of Dies Non

When a period is treated as dies non, it generally implies that this specific period will not count for salary, leave, increment, and pension (Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava v. State Of M.P, 2007; Battilal v. Union Of India, 2005). The judgment in Nazir Ahmad Baba v. State of J&K (2017) comprehensively lists the implications: (i) no remuneration (pay and allowances); (ii) it does not count for pension (for that specific period); (iii) it does not count for increment; (iv) it does not cause any interruption for leave earned up to the date preceding the dies non period; (v) it does not cause any interruption for past service qualifying for pension; (vi) it shall not count for experience; and (vii) during dies non, the concerned government servant shall not be entitled to promotion. Similarly, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Mohammad Afzal Wani(Dr.) v. State of J&K & Ors. (2009) observed that the period treated as "Dies-non" washes away the period of service from an employee's service for seniority purposes.

The Significance of "Without Break in Service"

The crucial addendum "without break in service" to an order of dies non serves to mitigate the harsher consequences that a "break in service" would entail. A break in service, particularly if not condoned, can lead to forfeiture of past service for pensionary and other benefits (Ram Dia And Others v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., 2005, referring to Rule 17A(2) regarding forfeiture for wilful absence).

The phrase "without break in service" ensures the continuity of service. This means that while the specific period designated as dies non may not count for certain benefits, the employee's prior service remains intact and is clubbed with subsequent service for overarching purposes like calculating the total qualifying service for pension (though the dies non period itself is excluded from this calculation). The Supreme Court in Madhukar v. State Of Maharashtra (2014), interpreting Rule 48(3) of the relevant pension rules, noted that in the absence of a specific indication to the contrary, an interruption between two spells of service is treated as automatically condoned, and pre-interruption service counts as qualifying service. This principle underpins the "without break in service" concept, ensuring that past service is not lost.

The Madras High Court in N. Venkatramani v. Indian Bank (2005), while dealing with Regulation 18 for pension, adopted a liberal interpretation of "break in service," suggesting that even a break at the end could be construed to round up service for pensionary benefits, emphasizing the importance of continuity.

Analysis of Key Judicial Pronouncements and Interpretations

The judiciary has grappled with the precise import of "dies non without break in service," particularly concerning its effect on long-term benefits and the procedural fairness required for its imposition.

Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice

Several courts have emphasized that an order treating a period as dies non, given its potential adverse consequences, should not be passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. In Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava v. State Of M.P (2007), the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that an order of dies non can be stigmatic, and if so, holding a departmental enquiry is presupposed. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in ZAHOOR AHMAD LONE v. HOME DEPARTMENT (2025) held that deciding to treat a period as dies non without prior notice to the employee amounts to a clear violation of natural justice. This was reiterated in the context of a challenge in Nirmalya Datta v. State Of Tripura (2020), where it was argued that treating a period as dies non could not be done without a full-fledged departmental inquiry.

However, the nature of dies non – whether purely administrative or punitive – can influence the procedural requirements. The Supreme Court in State Of Punjab v. Dr. P.L Singla (2008) distinguished between disciplinary punishment and consequential administrative orders, clarifying that granting extraordinary leave (often a precursor or alternative to dies non for unauthorized absence) is an accounting measure and does not automatically condone misconduct. If dies non is viewed purely as an administrative regularisation of an absence period, the procedural threshold might differ from when it is imposed as a penalty, as suggested in BHIKHABHAI MANGALBHAI v. M/O RAILWAYS (CAT, 2025) which termed dies non a "penalty measure."

The "Paradox": Interpretation of "Without Break in Service"

A significant point of contention arises from the interpretation of "without break in service." While generally understood to preserve past service continuity, the CAT, Principal Bench, in Nisha Rani v. Gnct Of Delhi (2014), highlighted a potential "paradox." The Tribunal observed:

"In the present case, when the disciplinary authority has directed the period to be treated as dies non, it has also ordered that the period will not constitute break in service, thus the order of the disciplinary authority is paradox. ... In the circumstances, we clarify that once the disciplinary authority viewed that the absence period would not be treated as break in service, the applicant would not be denied the benefit of said period for the purpose of financial upradations and pensionary benefits."

This interpretation suggests that if the authority explicitly states "without break in service," the intention might be to allow the period to count for broader benefits like financial upgradations under ACP/MACP schemes and for overall pensionary qualification, even if not for salary or increments for that specific period. This contrasts with the more common understanding where the dies non period itself is excluded from counting towards most benefits (Nazir Ahmad Baba v. State of J&K, 2017).

The case of Sudhanshu Paliwal v. Union Of India (CAT, 2010) further illustrates this ambiguity. The disciplinary authority had ordered that the period of unauthorized absence "would be treated as dies non without break in service for purposes of grant of pensionary benefits," yet the department was deducting this period for fixing pension. This indicates that even explicit wording can lead to disputes in interpretation.

Impact on Specific Service Benefits

Pension

The general rule is that the period treated as dies non itself does not count as qualifying service for pension calculation, although "without break in service" ensures that service prior to and after the dies non period is considered continuous for overall pension eligibility (Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava v. State Of M.P, 2007; Battilal v. Union Of India, 2005; Nazir Ahmad Baba v. State of J&K, 2017). The Supreme Court's stance in R.R Bhanot v. Union Of India (1994) on ensuring pensionary benefits despite administrative hurdles in cases of established service continuity supports the protective aspect of "without break in service." The condonation of interruptions as discussed in Madhukar v. State Of Maharashtra (2014) and Ram Dia And Others v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2005) reinforces that the primary aim of "without break" is to prevent forfeiture of past service. The *Nisha Rani* and *Sudhanshu Paliwal* cases, however, suggest that specific phrasing in the order can lead to arguments for including the dies non period itself for pensionary benefits.

Increments, Leave, and Salary

It is well-established that a period treated as dies non does not count for earning salary, increments, or leave for that duration (Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava v. State Of M.P, 2007; Battilal v. Union Of India, 2005; Nazir Ahmad Baba v. State of J&K, 2017).

Seniority and Promotion

The period of dies non is typically excluded when calculating service for seniority and determining eligibility for promotion (Mohammad Afzal Wani(Dr.) v. State of J&K & Ors., 2009; Nazir Ahmad Baba v. State of J&K, 2017). This is because seniority and promotional eligibility often depend on the actual length of active service rendered.

Financial Upgradations (ACP/MACP)

The impact on financial upgradation schemes like ACP/MACP is where the *Nisha Rani* interpretation becomes particularly relevant. If the "without break in service" clause is interpreted to mean that the period should count for such long-term career progression benefits (as suggested in *Nisha Rani*), it would be a significant exception to the general rule of non-reckoning of the dies non period. However, this interpretation is not universally applied and often depends on the specific wording of the order and the rules governing such schemes.

Relevance of Other Supreme Court Decisions

While not directly on "dies non," principles from other Supreme Court cases are pertinent. H.D Singh v. Reserve Bank Of India (1985) emphasized protection against unfair termination and adherence to statutory provisions, which by analogy supports the need for fairness when imposing dies non. Similarly, Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State Of Punjab (1987), which stressed due process and consideration of recent service records in premature retirement cases, underscores the importance of fair assessment before any adverse order, including dies non, is passed.

Conclusion

The administrative order of "dies non without break in service" is a nuanced instrument in Indian service law. It serves the dual purpose of addressing periods of unauthorized absence or similar situations by not counting such periods for immediate benefits like pay, increments, and leave, while simultaneously preserving the overall continuity of an employee's service, thereby preventing the harsh consequence of forfeiture of past service for pension and other long-term benefits.

However, the precise implications, particularly concerning benefits like financial upgradations and the extent to which the dies non period itself might be counted for pensionary purposes if the order contains specific enabling language, remain areas of interpretative challenge, as highlighted by cases like Nisha Rani and Sudhanshu Paliwal. The consistent judicial emphasis on adherence to principles of natural justice before imposing an order of dies non underscores its potential impact on an employee's service career. Clarity in administrative orders and a consistent application of rules, informed by judicial precedents, are essential to ensure fairness and predictability in the application of this complex service law concept.