ORDER Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. By an order dated 20.5.2006, a Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question of law to a larger Bench and this is how the matter is placed before this Full Bench: "Whether, when the authority directs that a particular period will be treated as dies-non would it ipso facto mean that there would be continuity of service but the period would not be counted towards the pension, or the principles of natural justice are to be followed, as the said act visits the delinquent officer with adverse civil consequence ?" 2. After hearing Mr. Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, we decline to answer the question for reasons which follow. 3. The respondent No.1, Dr. S.C. Dixit while serving in the Regional Medical Research Centre for Tribals, Jabalpur, was served with a memo dated 29.6.1995 under rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 alleging that he had remained absent unauthorisedly with effect from 21.12.1993. After the inquiry that followed, the disciplinary authority considered the findings of the inquiry officer as well as the representation of the respondent No.1 against the findings of the inquiry officer and by order dated 8.2.2001 imposed a penalty of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year and further directed that the period of unauthorised absence of the respondent from 21.12.1993 to 31.7.2000 be treated as 'dies-non'. Aggrieved, the respondent filed OA No. 209/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') praying inter alia that the direction given by the disciplinary authority to treat the period from 21.12.1993 to 31.7.2000 as dies-non be quashed and the period from 21.12.1993 to 31.7.2000 be counted as qualifying service for all purposes i.e. salary, pensionary and other retiral benefits. The Tribunal is its order dated 17.8.2004 held that principles of natural justice had been fully complied with before the order of penalty dated 8.2.2001 was passed and hence there was no ground to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the period of unauthorized absence was rightly treated as dies-non. The Tribunal is its order dated 17.8.2004 held that principles of natural justice had been fully complied with before the order of penalty dated 8.2.2001 was passed and hence there was no ground to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the period of unauthorized absence was rightly treated as dies-non. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.8.2004 of the Tribunal in OA No. 209/2003, the respondent No.1 filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution registered as WP No. 9832/2004 and a Division Bench disposed of the writ petition by order dated 12.10.2004 declining to interfere with the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority but clarified that the usage of the term 'dies-non' would not amount to discontinuance of the respondent No.1, but the respondent No.1 will not be entitled for any interest. 4. In another OA No. 191/2003 filed in the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 prayed for a direction to the Union of India, Director General of the Indian Council of Medical Research (for short 'ICMR') and the Director of the Regional Medical Research Centre (for short 'RMRC') to count the respondent No.1's services rendered from 22.7.1970 to 21.2.1989 for pensionary and other retiral benefits. By order dated 3.9.2004, the Tribunal allowed the OA with a direction to the authorities to count the services of the respondent No.1 rendered by him in National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau (for short 'NNMB') for the purpose of pensionary benefits and consider his case for grant of retiral benefits in accordance with law and rules. Against the order dated 3.9.2004 of the Tribunal in OA No. 191/2003, the Director General of ICMR, New Delhi and the Director of the RMRC, Jabalpur filed the present WP No. 13334/2004. The Division Bench, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, held in para 12 of the order dated 20.5.2006 that the stand taken by the writ petitioners, namely the Director General of ICMR, New Delhi and the Director of RMRC, Jabalpur that the respondent No.1 resigned from the post of Asstt. The Division Bench, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, held in para 12 of the order dated 20.5.2006 that the stand taken by the writ petitioners, namely the Director General of ICMR, New Delhi and the Director of RMRC, Jabalpur that the respondent No.1 resigned from the post of Asstt. Research Officer from NNMB without applying to the authorities and therefore the period of service of the respondent No. 1 in NNMB cannot be counted under Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules towards the service is absolutely misconceived and has to be rejected as the respondent No.1 had applied through the proper channel for resignation as has been held by the Tribunal. 5. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it will be clear that the questions whether the period treated as dies-non would ipso facto mean that there would be continuity of service and whether the period would not be counted towards the pension and whether principles of natural justice were to be followed before an order is passed for treating certain period as dies-non, if at all, arose in the earlier writ petition i.e. WP No. 9832/ 2004, but by order dated 12.10.2004, the Division Bench had disposed of the said writ petition upholding the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority including the order for treating the period of unauthorized absence of the respondent No.1 for the period from absence of the respondent No. 1 from 21.12.1993 to 31.7.2000 as dies-non and further clarifying it that the usage of the term 'dies-non' would not amount to discontinuance of the service of the respondent No.1. 6. The aforesaid narration of facts would further show that in the present WP No. 13334/2004 the questions whether the period of unauthorised absence of respondent No.1 from 21.12.1993 to 31.7.2000 directed to be treated as dies-non would count for the purpose of only continuity of service or also for pension or whether principles of natural justice had to be followed before order to treat a particu1ar period as dies-non did not arise for decision. The only question that arose for decision in the present WP No. 13334/2004 was whether the Tribunal was right in directing in its order dated 3.9.2004 in OA No. 191/2003 to count the services of the respondent No.1 rendered by him in NNMB for the purpose of pensionary and retiral benefits and this sole question has been decided by the Division Bench in the order dated 20.5.2006 in favour of the respondent No.1 and against the petitioners when the Division Bench did not interfere with the order of the Tribunal passed in the OA. 7. Since the question referred to us did not arise for decision in the present WP No. 13334/2004 and if at all it arose in WP (S) No. 9832/ 2004 which stood disposed of by Division Bench by order dated 12.10.2004, this is not a case which should have been referred to a larger Bench for decision and accordingly we decline to answer the question. 8. As we have seen, the Division Bench in its order dated 20.5.2006 in the present writ petition has upheld the impugned order of the Tribunal and hence, we dismiss the writ petition.