ORDER Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. In this proceeding, the petitioner has prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to grant him all the service benefits like, seniority, increments of pay and arrears of pay etc. pertaining to the period when he remained absent from service on setting aside/quashing, (i) the letter No. C. 18015/2/2009-DHSE dated 13-04-2012 along with (a) letter No. C. 18012/28/07-HFW/Vol.II/236-238 dated 03-04-2012, (b) I.D. No. GSW 16/2012/2680 dated 27-03-2012 and (c) I.D. No. LJC-30/2012/29 dated 13-03-2012. The facts necessary for disposal of this present proceeding, in short, are that on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Grade-IV in the Office of the Civil Surgeon, Chhimtuipui District, Saiha by the then Civil Surgeon Chhimtuipui District, Saiha vide his order dated 08-08-1988. On being so appointed, he was posted at Cheural. While he was working in the aforesaid Office, he was granted leave for 45 days w.e.f. 01-01-1991 to 14-02-1991 vide Office Order dated 02-01-1991. 2. On the expiry of his leave period, the petitioner submitted his joining report on 15-02-1991. However, when he went to join his post after the expiry of his leave period, he was told that his service was terminated w.e.f. 01-02-1991 vide Office order dated 07-02-1991 and one Sh. Hmunthanga was allowed to officiate in his place, vide Office Order dated 21-01-1991. 3. On coming to know all these, the petitioner submitted a representation demanding his reinstatement. The respondents processed the representation and they finally informed him vide letter dated 21-03-2007 that he could not be reinstated since he was terminated from service w.e.f. 01-02-1991 and since he sought reinstatement after a very long gap. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition (C) No. 30/2007. In due course, notice of the proceeding was served on the State respondents therein. They entered appearance and contested the proceeding. However, on hearing the parties, this Court was pleased to set aside the impugned termination order dated 07-02-1991 but it also gave the respondents the liberty to initiate a fresh departmental inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law and established procedure, off course, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order vide judgment and order dated 17-06-2008 passed in WP(C) No. 30/2007. 5. 5. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 has directed Mr. D.F. Lallianhlira, Chief Medical Officer, Lawngtlai District, Lawngtlai to enquire into the matter regarding unauthorised absence of the petitioner from service and to report accordingly. On being so entrusted, the Chief Medical Officer, Lawngtlai District, Lawngtlai conducted an inquiry to the matter and come to the conclusion that the petitioner was terminated from service while he was availing of leave and the grievance that he was wrongly terminated from service was justified vide his letter dated 25-07-2008. 6. Situation being as stated above, the petitioner submitted an application dated 14-10-2008, praying his reinstatement to his service with necessary services benefits. Since it was not responded by the respondents, he repeated his prayer vide his application dated 21-01-1990. As the second representation too failed to evoke any response from the respondents, he once again approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition which was registered as WP(C) No. 73/2009. Once again, notice of that proceeding was served on the respondents who contested the same and on hearing the parties, this Court was pleased to dispose of the same vide order dated 30-11-2009 by directing the respondent No. 2 to dispose of the representations dated 14-10-2008 & 20-01-2009. 7. On receipt of the order so passed in WP(C) No. 73/2009, the respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 02-02-2010 cancelling the termination order dated 07-02-1991 and also directed the respondent No. 3 to hold an enquiry into the alleged unauthorised absence of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order dated 02-02-2010 is reproduced below:- ...In view of above, there is a genuine need for holding a through disciplinary inquiry into the alleged unauthorized absence of the said Grade-IV staff viz. Rinmuana and to establish proper identity of Rinmuana who was appointed as cook in Chawngte PL. Sub-Centre on 08-08-1988 and whether the writ petitioner, C. Ringmuana and said Rinmuana are the same person or not. It is, therefore, ordered (1) that the impugned termination order dated 07-02-1991 terminating Pu Ringmuana Grade-IV staff/cook of Cheural Sub-Centre stands cancelled; and (2) that the Director, Health Services shall hold an inquiry on the points/issues raised above and submit his report within a month from the date of this order; and (3) the question of reinstatement of the writ petitioner and his entitlement to back wages etc. shall be considered finally after receipt and perusal of the report of the Director, Health Services.... 8. On receipt of the order dated 02-02-2010 from the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 3 directed Dr. F. Lalhmingthang, SPO, NPCB to make a spot verification and to report the matter. Accordingly, the later conducted a verification and submitted his report vide letter dated 25-02-2010. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 26-02-2010 has forwarded the verification report to the respondent No. 2 for his doing further needful. The respondent No. 2 after considering the verification report aforesaid, issued the impugned Order dated 09-03-2010 reinstating the petitioner to his original post but it was further 'stated therein that the period of his absence from duty i.e. December, 1990 till his reinstatement to the service being unauthorised one shall be treated as dies-non on the principle of no-work no-pay save and except any period of absence which can be regularised by way of grant of any leave available to his credit. 9. The petitioner is still being aggrieved initiated third round of litigation by way of filing WP(C) No. 51/2010. The filing of the writ petition was duly notified to the State respondents who entered appearance and contested the proceeding and after hearing the parties, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioner for back wages within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed in that proceeding. 10. The respondent No. 3 thereafter vide letter dated 13-04-2012 informed the petitioner that his application for back wages could not be considered, since according to the Law & Judicial Department, the Govt. is not bound to pay the back wages vide remarks of the Law & Judicial Department dated 13-03-2012 in I.D. No. LJC.30/2012/29. The petitioner contends that the decision of the respondents in deciding not to pay him any back wages was illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as well as FR 54 and as such, same is liable to be set aside. 11. Moreover, the failure of the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner for seniority and increments also offence the aforesaid provisions and as such, the petitioner had approached this Court once again seeking the reliefs aforementioned. 11. Moreover, the failure of the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner for seniority and increments also offence the aforesaid provisions and as such, the petitioner had approached this Court once again seeking the reliefs aforementioned. The notice of that proceeding was served upon the respondents and they have contested the proceeding having filed joint counter affidavit. It has been submitted that it is true that the petitioner has produced before the Court an order granting Earned Leave for 45 days, i.e. w.e.f. 01-01-1991 to 14-02-1991. 12. But it is found evident from his application for reinstatement addressed to the Hon'ble Health Minister that he absented himself without permission for 90 days beginning from 01-01-1991. It has also been submitted that the claim of the petitioner that he came to his Office on 15-02-1991 to resume his duty is extremely doubtful but same could not be verified as the cyclone of 1993 & 1995 damaged very many important files in the Chief Medical Office is concerned which included the files pertaining to the petitioner as well. Being so, his joining report dated 15-02-1991 cannot be treated as genuine one, more so, when he in his application to the Health Minister, admitted that he was absent from duty w.e.f. 01-01-1991. 13. The further case of the respondents was that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice to offer explanation as to his unauthorized absence from duty but he refused to comply with such order since he inducted himself into Vanawia's cult at Thaltlang. In regard to his claim of back wages etc., the respondents obtained the opinion of the Law Department which opined that the Govt. is not bound to pay the back wages vide their I.D. No. LJC.30/2012/29 dated 13-03-2012. In view of above, the respondents have urged this Court to dismiss the proceeding, so initiated by the petitioner with costs. 14. I have heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. A.G., Mizoram at length keeping the materials on record in view. In view of above, the respondents have urged this Court to dismiss the proceeding, so initiated by the petitioner with costs. 14. I have heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. A.G., Mizoram at length keeping the materials on record in view. A careful perusal of the record reveals that though the respondents claim that the petitioner absented himself from his duty in an unauthorized way for three months w.e.f. 01-01-1991, though the claims that show cause notice was served on him requiring him to assign the reasons as to why he remained absent from duty in an unauthorized way and although they claim that the petitioner did not responded to such notice yet the respondents could produce no concrete materials to support such claims. 15. Thus, the claim of the respondents that the petitioner remained absent from duty in an unauthorized way for a period of three months w.e.f. 01-01-1991 is found rather unconvincing. The fact that at one point of time, respondents had set up the plea that all the relevant documents pertaining to the service record of the petitioner got damaged due to cyclone which ravaged the town concerned in 1993 & 1995 only fortifies the view that the respondents could not substantiate their claim that petitioner remained absent from duty in a unauthorized way during the period aforesaid. 16. What is, however, important to note is that the petitioner has produced some documents, presumably authored by the respondents, to show that he was duly granted Earned Leave for 45 days i.e. w.e.f. 01-01-1991 and that he was terminated from service while he was still on leave. These only show that the order of termination was illegal for which this Court, vide its judgment and order dated 17-06-2008, passed in W.P.(C) No 30/2007, was pleased to set aside the impugned termination order giving liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh departmental enquiry within thirty days from the date of receipt of such order. In the teeth of such revelations, the impugned order refusing to give the petitioner the back pay on treating his period of absence as dies-non is found totally unsustainable. 17. It has also been contended that the order in question cannot be allowed to stand on other counts as well. In the teeth of such revelations, the impugned order refusing to give the petitioner the back pay on treating his period of absence as dies-non is found totally unsustainable. 17. It has also been contended that the order in question cannot be allowed to stand on other counts as well. It has been submitted that an order of 'dies-non' may be passed only when there is an established break in service and to establish break in service a regular departmental enquiry needs to be initiated. In order to bring home its point, my attention has been drawn to the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Arunangshu Roy v. State of Tripura & Ors. reported in 2000 (3) GLT 446, wherein His Lordship's held as follows:- 9. It is pertinent to mention here that an order of 'dies-non' may be passed when there is an established 'break in service' and not otherwise. The break in service occurs when a Government employee absents himself from duty without authority or permission or when leave applied for is refused for bona fide reasons. A disciplinary proceedings in the given circumstances of the case has to be completed before any order treating the period of absence as 'dies-non' is passed. There cannot be any deviation from this procedure. 18. Admittedly and evidently, in our instant case, no departmental enquiry had ever been held to ascertain his alleged unauthorized absence from duty. Therefore, on the application of the aforesaid decision, it is found that the order dated 09-03-2012 treating the period of absence of the petitioner from duty as dies-non is found to be illegal. Since, the order dated 09-03-2012 is found to be illegal, the order impugned here whereby and whereunder the respondents refused to give the petitioner back wages is also found illegal. 19. The order in question suffers from infirmity on other count as well. It is found apparent from Annexures-30, 31, 32 and 33 to the writ petition that no cogent convincing and clear reason was assigned as to why the petitioner should be deprived from getting back wage. The observation in Annexure-30 appears to have been made more on conjectures than on facts. Being so, in my considered view, the action, taken in the form of order dated 13-03-2012, 27-03-2012, 03-04-2012 and 13-04-2012, being principally based on surmise and conjecture, cannot be allowed to stand. 20. The observation in Annexure-30 appears to have been made more on conjectures than on facts. Being so, in my considered view, the action, taken in the form of order dated 13-03-2012, 27-03-2012, 03-04-2012 and 13-04-2012, being principally based on surmise and conjecture, cannot be allowed to stand. 20. In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned order refusing to give the petitioner the back pay needs to be set aside which I accordingly do. Consequently, the orders under challenge stand set aside. 21. On perusal of the matter before this Court in its entirety, I am also of the opinion that case of the petitioner ought to have been considered as per provision of FR 54(4). Since the respondents did not dispose of the matter above in accordance with provisions of FR 54(4) and as such, they are directed to dispose of the prayer relating to back wages etc. of the petitioner in the terms of FR 54(4) within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 22. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the respondents in disposing of his prayer for back wages etc. as and when his co-operation is sought for. With the above observations and directions, the present proceeding is disposed of. The parties are however directed to bear their own costs. Disposed off