Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ‘Non-Duty Period’ for Prolonged Unauthorized Absence Despite Reinstatement; Denies Pensionary Benefit
Case Name: Kiranjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Decision: 20 January 2026
Citation: CWP-12404-2020
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders treating the petitioner’s prolonged period of absence as a non-duty period, holding that reinstatement in service does not automatically entitle an employee to have the intervening period treated as qualifying service for pension. The Court held that where charges of unauthorized absence are proved and the employee is not exonerated, the competent authority is empowered under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, to treat such period as non-duty.
Summary: The petitioner, a government school teacher, challenged the orders dated 29.01.2018 and 14.11.2019 whereby, although she was reinstated in service after departmental proceedings, the period from 01.10.2011 till her retirement on 28.02.2017 was treated as non-duty period without back wages. Initially appointed on 89-days basis and later regularised, the petitioner had proceeded abroad on sanctioned Ex-India leave. During her stay overseas, she developed serious medical complications and was diagnosed with endometrial cancer, following which she repeatedly sought extension of leave on medical grounds.
The requests for extension of leave were never sanctioned by the competent authority. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated for unauthorized absence. The petitioner was removed from service, which order was later set aside by the High Court in an earlier writ petition, directing the authorities to conduct a regular enquiry. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the charges of unauthorized absence were held proved. Considering that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation, the punishing authority ordered reinstatement without back wages and declared the entire period of absence as non-duty.
Before the High Court, the petitioner restricted her claim to seeking treatment of the said period as qualifying service for pension. It was contended that once reinstatement was ordered, the intervening period could not be treated as non-duty. The State opposed the plea, relying on Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.
The Court examined Rule 7.3 in detail and held that only in cases where an employee is fully exonerated does the period of absence mandatorily qualify as duty. In all other cases, including where charges are proved, the competent authority has discretion to treat the period as non-duty unless it expressly directs otherwise. Since the petitioner was not exonerated and the charge of unauthorized absence stood proved, the Court found no illegality in the impugned orders.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the orders dated 29.01.2018 and 14.11.2019 treating the petitioner’s absence period till retirement as non-duty period and denying its inclusion as qualifying service for pension.