ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The instant writ petition is directed against order dated 9th February, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting – Bilaspur, by which Original Application No.203/00753/2017 filed by respondent No.1 herein has been allowed and order dated 15.11.2016 has been set aside and the period of absence from duty of respondent No.1 from 24.06.2009 to 18.09.2009 and from 17.11.2009 to 18.02.2010 has been directed to be regularized and further been directed to disburse the salary for the said period to respondent No.1. 2. The challenge to the impugned order has been made in following factual backdrop:- 2.1 That respondent No.1 while working as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) at Kendriya Vidyalalya No.1 Raipur run by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (for short 'KVS') applied for child care leave (for short 'CCL') on 24.02.2009 w.e.f. 22.06.2009 to 30.04.2010 which was not responded by the KVS, Raipur leading to which she filed another application dated 28.03.2009 reiterating her request and the same was allowed by the then Principal and accordingly from 24.06.2009 to 18.09.2009 and from 17.11.2009 to 18.02.2010 she was on CCL. However, by order dated 22.04.2010 & 27.04.2010 the aforesaid period was declared as dies non to which respondent No.1 made representation and ultimately, KVS by order dated 15.11.2016 held that since the aforesaid period has already been declared dies non, therefore, the aforesaid period cannot be regularized and salary cannot be paid to her. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved against that said order, respondent No.1 preferred Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and by the impugned order learned Tribunal allowed the application holding that the child care leave of the applicant has already been sanctioned by the Competent Authority and, therefore, respondent No.1 is entitled for regularization and for salary for the subject period which is sought to be challenged by way of this writ petition. 3. Ms. 3. Ms. Deepali Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the CAT') is absolutely unjustified in holding that for the subject period, respondent No.1 is entitled to be regularized and also entitled for salary for the said period and the said finding recorded by the CAT is absolutely perverse and contrary to the material available on record as respondent No.1 was unauthorizedly absent from duty and the subject period has already been declared dies non by order dated 22.04.2010 & 27.04.2010 and consequently, respondent No.1 is not entitled for regularization as well as salary for the aforesaid period and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Respondent No.1 present in person would support the impugned order and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Admittedly, the period from 24.06.2009 to 18.09.2009 and 17.11.2009 to 18.02.2010 was declared dies non by KVS vide order dated 22.04.2010 & 27.04.2010 and the representation made by respondent No.1 herein has been rejected vide order dated 15.11.2016 which was challenged before the CAT by filing Original Application in which learned Administrative Tribunal came to the conclusion that for the said period, child care leave of respondent No.1 was duly sanctioned by the Competent Authority / Principal of the School as child care leave and respondent No.1 had already submitted medical document supporting her leave and, therefore, respondent No.1 is entitled for regularization for subject period and also for salary for the subject period and the learned Tribunal has observed as under in paras 6 & 7 while granting the Original Application in its judgment:- “6. The applicant very well applied for CCL vide her application dated 24.02.2009 w.e.f. 22.06.2009 to 30.04.2010 and on 28.03.2009 again confirm the approval of the said leave where remarks “allowed” with signature has been endorsed, which considered to be leave sanctioned. In regard to leave sanctioning authority is concerned, the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 25.09.2009 has clarified that the Principal is competent authority to sanction leave including childcare leave to their employees. In regard to leave sanctioning authority is concerned, the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 25.09.2009 has clarified that the Principal is competent authority to sanction leave including childcare leave to their employees. Child Care Leave is a kind of leave may be granted to woman employees having minor children by an authority competent to grant leave for a maximum period of 730 days (2 years) during their entire service for taking care of up to two children, whether for rearing or to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness, etc. The leave of applicant was already sanctioned by the then Principal of KV, Raipur on account of serious medical conditions of the daughter of the applicant and once leave has been sanctioned, the incumbent Principal should not have reviewed or reversed the sanction already granted by the then Principal. The successor in office had the jurisdiction and power to ascertain the genuineness of the claim of the applicant, which the applicant had submitted the medical prescriptions of treatment of her daughter. In the case of Krushan Kant Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 178 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “.........18. In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorized absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is willful, in the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.” In this case no proper enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the applicant. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Original Application is allowed. The impugned Order dated 15.11.2016 (Annexure A/1) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to regularize the period of service of the applicant from 24.06.2009 to 18.09.2009 and 17.11.2009 to 18.02.2010 and disburse the salary for the said period within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. No order as to costs.” 7. In our considered opinion, finding recorded by the learned Administrative Tribunal that the child care leave which was duly sanctioned to respondent No.1 by the competent authority, could not have been reviewed/withdrawn by the successor competent authority (KVS), is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We find no merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. 8. We find no merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. 8. In addition to above reasoning and finding, the legal question involved in the present case and which the learned Tribunal has not addressed is, whether an order treating a particular period for which leave has been applied as “dies non” could be passed without initiating a departmental proceeding and/or without giving an opportunity to respondent No.1 to represent her case? 9. The aforesaid period i.e. from 24.06.2009 to 18.09.2009 and from 17.11.2009 to 18.02.2010 was declared “dies non” by order dated 22.04.2010 & 27.04.2010 and reiterated in order dated 15.11.2016 by KVS, Raipur and the effect of declaring that period as dies non has been laid down in office memorandum dated 22nd June, 2010 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel P.G. and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) which is consolidated instructions on regularization of unauthorized absence filed as Annexure P/12 and paras 6 and 7 of the said office memorandum state as under:- “6. Comptroller and Auditor General have issued orders that the period of absence not covered by grant of leave shall have to be treated as “dies non” for all purposes, viz. increment, leave and pension. Such absence without leave where it stands singly and not in continuation of any authorized leave of absence will constitute an interruption of service for the purpose of pension and unless the pension sanctioning authority exercises its powers under Article 421, Civil Service Regulations [now Rule 27 of the CCS (pension) Rules] to treat the period as leave without allowance, the entire past service will stand forfeited. 7. It may be noted that regularization of unauthorized absence for pension purpose is to be considered under the CCS (Pension) Rules. Only in cases where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that the grounds adduced for unauthorized absence are justified, the leave of the kind applied for and due and admissible may be granted to him under the CCS (Leave) Rules.” 10. Only in cases where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that the grounds adduced for unauthorized absence are justified, the leave of the kind applied for and due and admissible may be granted to him under the CCS (Leave) Rules.” 10. A careful perusal of the aforesaid instructions would show that period of absence not covered by grant of leave shall have to be treated as “dies non” for all practical purposes i.e. increment, leave and pension and it will constitute an interruption of service for the purpose of pension and furthermore, regularization of unauthorized absence for pension purpose is to be considered under the CCS (Pension) Rules by the competent authority. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Battilal v. Union of India, 2005 (3) MPHT 32 (DB) has held that 'dies non' means the continuity of service is maintained, but service period treated 'dies non' will not be counted for the purpose of leave, salary, increment and pension. It means due to order of dies non the pension of the employee will be reduced. 11. In the matter of B.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana, AIR 1972 SC 2472 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that if an order affects the employee financially, it must be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee and observed as under:- “Besides, the real ratio in M. Gopala Krishna Naidu's Case, (1986) 1 SCR 355 ( AIR 1968 SC 240 ) was that if an order affects the employee financially, it must be passed after an objective consideration and assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances and after giving the person concerned full opportunity to make out his own case about that order......” 12. Bearing in mind the principles of law laid down in the matter of Battilal (supra) as well as B.D. Gupta (supra) and taking into consideration para 5 of the circular of the Central Government dated 22nd June, 2010, it is quite vivid that the impugned order declaring “dies non” dated 22/27.04.2010 and reiterated in order dated 15.11.2016 definitely have adverse impact on the financial health of respondent No.1 herein qua increments / leave and the said period will constitute an interruption of service for the purpose of pension and total period of service to be computed for finalisation of pension will stand reduced and the order declaring the subject period to be “dies non” could have only been passed after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1 and after holding a departmental proceedings as effect of declaring the period of absence as “dies non”, it will constitute an interruption of service for the purpose of pension by which respondent No.1 would lose the said period to be calculated for qualifying service towards pension, but subject to regularization by the disciplinary authority. Since break / interruption in service has serious civil consequences, any order to such effect cannot be passed without affording reasonable opportunity to respondent No.1 for making representation. As such, in the instant case, neither any opportunity has been afforded to respondent No.1 nor any disciplinary enquiry was initiated against respondent No.1 before declaring the subject period as “dies non” and the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, even otherwise, the learned CAT had already held that the child care leave was duly granted to respondent No.1 herein by the Competent Authority. 13. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the learned CAT is absolutely justified in regularizing the aforesaid period and further directing the KVS / petitioners to disburse salary for the aforesaid period to respondent No.1. We do not find any merit in the instant petition it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).