Heard Mr. L. Shyamkishwor, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Asok Potsangbam, learned, Advocate General, Manipur appearing on behalf of the respondents. I have perused the materials before the court. 2. The following facts are ascertained. The petitioner, who was serving as Sanitary Inspector at Wangoi PHC, was transferred to Jiribam PHC vide Government of Manipur Medical Directorate order No.10/1/76 dated 6.5.1977 and he was released on 18.5.1977. He joined his duty at Jiribam PHC on 17.11.1978. After more than one year of his said joining, the petitioner applied for casual leave for five days w.e.f. 20.11.1979 and thereafter, he remained absent from his place of posting for years together. The petitioner joined to his duty again at Jiribam PHC on 2.11.1998. Then, the Director of Health Services, Manipur, purportedly on direction of the Secretariat Health Department, Manipur, issued order dated 25.1.2000 thereby granting dies non for the following periods of absence from duty - (i) 19.5.1977 to 16.11.1978 ; (ii) 25.11.1979 to 1.11.1998 and further allowing the petitioner to draw his pay and allowances w.e.f. 2.11.1998. 3. According to the petitioner, at the relevant time of his transfer, he was not getting his salary for some months and though he applied for advance T.A., he was not given it. Further, according to the petitioner, though he filed applications and requested several times for making payment of his salary and transfer TA , the respondent No.2 did not grant his request illegally and arbitrarily. Moreover, according to the petitioner, when the Director of Health Services, Manipur (Respondent No.2) called for explanation for his absence from the place of posting, vide office memorandum dated 13.4.1998, he submitted his explanation on 22.4.1998 stating the impossibilities and his difficulties to stay at Jiribam PHC without getting his salary. It is the case of the petitioner that the said order of the Director of Health Services, Manipur was issued illegally , arbitrarily and unjustly without holding any Departmental Enquiry in connection with the treating of the said period of absence as dies non and allowing of him to get his salary w.e.f. 2.11.1998 only. The petitioner is aggrieved that the impugned order has the effect of treating him as a fresh employee thereby imposing penalty of forfeiting all the benefits of his earlier services without giving him any opportunity of hearing in that regard. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved that the impugned order has the effect of treating him as a fresh employee thereby imposing penalty of forfeiting all the benefits of his earlier services without giving him any opportunity of hearing in that regard. 4. On the other hand, according to the respondents, while the petitioner was at Wangoi PHC, he attended to his duty only one day in two months and because of his failure to submit any explanation, despite calling explanation for two times, his pay was withheld for his unauthorized absence. Further, according to the respondents, the petitioner, after one year and three days of joining to his duty at Jiribam, took five days casual leave and thereafter, after remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly for about 20 years, he was allowed to rejoin his duty by invoking the principle of dies non so that his pay could be released and by doing so, the Government has taken human, fair and sympathetic approach in the case of the petitioner. Moreover, according to the respondents, apart from filing various representations to the Minister directly by the petitioner or his wife thereby making himself liable to disciplinary action, he also submitted a representation dated 19.10.1999 to the Director of Health Services, Manipur abandoning any right to claim for salary of the said period of unauthorized absence and as such, he is estopped from claiming anything contrary to his statement of abandonment. 5. Upon hearing the parties through their respective counsel and on perusal of the materials before the court, it is ascertained that when the petitioner rejoined to his duty at Jiribam on 2.11.1998 after many years of his absence, there was no any objection from the side of the concerned authorities. Even though no formal order was issued on 2.11.1998 by any authority in connection with the said rejoining of the petitioner, he was purportedly allowed to perform his duty and as such, his service was utilized again from 2.11.1998 onwards. On 25.1.2000, i.e., after more than one year of the said rejoining of the petitioner, the impugned order treating the said period of his absence as dies non and allowing him to get his pay and allowances w.e.f. 2.11.1998 was passed thereby in effect giving formal recognition of his services as well as ordering for payment of his pay and allowances. It is to be noted that no departmental enquiry was held in connection with the absence of the petitioner for years together. No law/rule governing the service of the petitioner to the effect that his long absence without permission should have been automatically deemed to have terminated his service has been brought to the notice of this court. Even though the petitioner submitted a representation on 19.10.1999 to the respondent No.2 stating about having no objection to the non-payment of salaries for the period of his unauthorized absence, he made a request to safeguard his service career. The said representation dated 19.10.1999 cannot be considered as one submitted by the petitioner agreeing to treat the said period of absence as dies non and to forfeit all the benefits of his previous services before the said rejoining. The petitioner's grievance is in effect in respect of the forfeiting of his incidental benefits of his previous service, which has not been terminated at any point of time, without giving him any opportunity of hearing in that regard. 6. In the light of the above considerations, I am of the considered opinion that the said portion of the impugned order dated 25.1.2000 treating the said periods i.e. 19.5.1977 to 16.11.1979 and 25.11.1979 to 1.11.1998 as dies non is not sustainable in the eye of law. The said portion was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. Since, the said portion is not sustainable in the eye of law and it is not to be given effect to. The respondents shall passed an appropriate order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in respect of the said matter as to how the said period of absence of the petitioner is to be treated. Having regards to all the relevant considerations, including the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the remaining portion of the impugned order dated 25.1.2000 allowing the petitioner to draw his pay and salary w.e.f. 2.11.1998 is not interfered with. However, liberty is given to the respondents to issue appropriate order specifying , depending on how those periods during which the petitioner was absent is treated, the scale of pay and allowances that the petitioner will be entitled to get from the date of his rejoining. The said exercise shall have to be done within a period of six months from today. The said exercise shall have to be done within a period of six months from today. Till then, the petitioner is to be allowed to get his pay and allowances on the basis of the said portion of the impugned order dated 25.1.2000. 7. With this order and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.