This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.05.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2662/2007.
The petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated 11.05.2005 filed as Annexure P/9 with the petition, by which period between 02.12.1985 to 12.11.1986 and between 20.11.1986 to 24.09.1987 has been ordered to be treated as “dies non”. In addition, the period between 21.04.2000 to 31.05.2003 was ordered to be treated as “break in service”.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ Court has not examined the impugned order dated 11.05.2005 in its entirety and has only considered it in regard to ‘dies non’. Challenge has also been made to the order passed by the writ Court, affirming the decision of the State Government treating the said period as ‘dies non’. It has also been contended that the period, as aforesaid, treated by the State Government as “break in service” is also illegal.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the order dated 11.05.2005 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.05.2007, we find that the learned Single Judge has not gone into the other aspect of the matter regarding the period of “break in service”. In the circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter for consideration before the writ Court, afresh on the issue about ‘dies non’ as also about “break in service”.
In the circumstances, we allow the writ appeal to the extent indicated above. The writ Court to examine the grounds raised in the writ petition, afresh in regard to ‘dies non’ and “break in service” and pass a fresh order.
C. c. within three days.