SHINGHAL, J. - (1.) IN this case a reply has not been filed by the respondents but this writ petition can be disposed of on facts which have not been disputed on their behalf by the learned Additional Advocate General.
(2.) PETITIONER Dwarka Prashad was confirmed as a clerk in the Posts and Telegraphas Department with effect from March 1, 1961 vide order Ex. 2 dated April 1, 1962, and he continues to hold that post. There was a strike of the employees of the Government of India on September 19, 1968, and the petitioner did not attend his office on that day. He attended the office from September 20, 1968 onwards. Treating him as absent on September 19, 1968, the petitioner was not paidl h's salary for that day, and his annual increment was also put off by one day. No disciplinary proceeding was however taken against him. The petitioner wanted to appear at the ensuing examination for recruitment of Inspectors to be held in December, 1969, and applied for the same. He was however informed by a letter of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Jodhpur Division, on December 2, 1969 (Ex. 4), that he could not be permitted to do so because he did not have 5 years' continuous service on July 1, 1969. The petitioner feels aggrieved against the order debarring him from the examination and has challenged it on the ground that he had put in 5 years' continuous service as required by the rules. In view of the nature of the controversy, an interim order was made by this Court that the respondents shall allow the petitioner to take the examination on the question of his eligibility. It was left open to the respondents to withhold his result until further orders. The petitioner, it is contended, has taken the examination in pursuance of that order. The rules for recruitment to the posts of Inspectors, for which the petitioner aspired, are contained in Appendix No. 51 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual, Volume IV, and are known as the Posts and Telegraphs (Assistant Superintendents and Inspectors of Post Offices and Railway Mail Service) Recruitment Rules, 1967. I shall refer to them as "the Rules". The relevant recruitment of the Rules, for purposes of the present controversy, is stated in column 7, against serial No. 3 of the Schedule, as follows - " (i) Not less than 5 years continuous service in the clerical and/or Stenographers grade". There is a note in the Rules regarding the meaning of the expression "service", and there are two other qualifications which are not relevant. The controversy in this case centres round the question whether the petitioner had put in not less than 5 years' continuous service in the clerical grade on the relevant date. It will be recalled that he was confirmed as a clerk with effect from March 1, 1961, and but for his absence on September 19, 1968 in the circumstances mentioned above, he would undoubtedly have been taken as having put in not less than 5 years' continuous service for purposes of the examination. The question is whether his service ceased to be "continuous" because of his absence on September 19, 1968? Before examining the question, I may as well make a reference to the relevant rules bearing on the question of the continuity of the petitioner's service in circumstances, like the present, where the leave of absence was not granted, the salary was not paid for the day of absence and the annual increment was also put off by one day. Absence from duty has been dealt with in rule 39 of the Posts and Tele* graphs Manual, Vol. II. The rule provides, inter alia, that permission to avail of casual or other leave should be taken in advance unless there are compelling reasons of medical or other urgent nature, and that an applicant for leave is not allowed to avail himself of it until the leave is sanctioned and he has formally made over charge to the officer appointed to relieve him. It has however been provided that in cases of severe illness, the medical certificate should be produced, failing which no pay can be granted to the applicant and he will be liable to be granted leave without pay. Then there in rule 40 which is more important. Sub-rule 1 of that rule provides as follows: "absence from duty without leave previously obtained is opposed to discipline and may be dealt with by the imposition of any of the recognised penalties. Ordinarily in cases of this kind other than cases of overstayal of leave without authority, the period of absence can be treated as leave without pay. The cases of overstayal of leave in such circumstances may be regulated in accordance with F. R.-73 and the Government of India decisions under the Revised Leave Rules, 1933. " Then there are sub*rules which deal with continuous absence from duty or overs-tyal of leave without permission and the alternative procedure in the case of temporary government servants, which are not relevant. The other relevant provision is that contained in Article 420 of the Civil Service Regulations. The relevant provision reads as follows, - "420. An interruption in the service of an officer entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases: - (a) Authorised leave of absence. (b) Unauthorised absence in continuation of authorised leave of absence so long as the office of the absentee is not substantively filled; if his office is substantively filled, the past service of the absentee is forfeited. The contention of the petitioner that his absence without leave on September 19, 1968, did not affect the continuity of his service for purposes of his eligibility for the examination has to be examined with reference to these Rules. As has been stated, it is one of the essential requirements of the Rules that a candidate for the examination in question should have put in "not less than 5 years' continuous service in the clerical grade", and the meaning of the expression "continuous service" has therefore to be examined. The word "continuous" has been defined as follows in the Oxford English Dictionary, - Characterized by continuity; extending in space without interruption of substance; having no interstice or breaks; having its parts in immediate connexion; connexion connected, unbroken. " It will thus appear that only an "interruption of substance" can be said to break the continuity which characterizes continuous service like the present In other words, it is not every interruption, however inconsequential, which can be said to detract from the continuity of the service To my mind, the definition is of considerable assistance for a just decision of the petitioner's case for I have no doubt that a break in service which is inconsequential, even on the view taken by the employer, cannot make a continuous service non-continuous. I have already made a reference to rules 39 and 40 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual, Volume IT, and they make it quite clear that while permission to avail of casual or other leave should be taken in advance (unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary), and while absence from duty without leave previously obtained is opposed to discipline and may be dealt with by the imposition of the recognized penalties, ordinarily, in cases of this kind, the period of absence can be treated as leave without pay. In other words, these rules leave it to the discretion of the authority concerned whether to impose one of the recognised penalties where an employee is absent from duty without leave previously obtained, or to treat it as leave without pay. And it cannot be doubted that if the unauthorised absence attracts some such significance as to be visited with a penalty, the imposition of the penalty will require the observance of the prescribed procedure. It is not in dispute, however, that no such procedure was followed in the present case, and it is not disputed that no disciplinary proceeding was at all taken against the petitioner. I have no doubt that this inevitably leads to the conclusion that the absence of the petitioner on September 19, 1968 was not held by the disciplinary authority to be "'opposed to discipline" within the meaning of the aforesaid rule 40. In terms of that rule it was, therefore, an ordinary case, and the period of absence could be treated as leave without pay. It is true that leave was not sanctioned to the petitioner even without pay, so that it cannot be said that the leave of absence has been granted or the absence has been regularised but, even so, it cannot be said that simply for this reason it should be inferred that there was a break in the continuity of the petitioner's service. The fact that salary was not paid to the petitioner for the one day of his absence and his annual increment was postponed by one day, cannot detract from this conclusion. It has to be remembered in this connection that if it had been the intention of the disciplinary authority to terminate the petitioner's service because of his absence on September 19, 1968, that authority would have done so according to the law, after following the procedure required for the imposition of the penalty, by way of a disciplinary proceeding. Since this was not done, and the disciplinary authority contented itself by deducting a day's salary from the pay bill of the petitioner and putting off his increment by one day, I have no doubt that that authority did not take such a serious view of the lapse on the part of the petitioner as to create a break in the continuity of his service. In other words, the interruption of a day in the service was of no substance and it would not therefore operate as a break in the continuity of the petitioner's service or make it anything but continuous service. I have already made a reference to Article 420 of the Civil Service Regulations, and I have kept it all through in mind because it deals with interruption in service, and specifically provides that an interruption in the service of an officer entails forfeiture of his past service. It provides, inter alia, for the condonation of only authorised leave of absence, and this is why it has been argued by learned Additional Advocate General that the unauthorised leave of absence had the effect of forfeiting the past service of the petitioner under the rule. It appears, however, that Article 420 is one of the rules for reckoning service for calculating the pensionary benefits of an employee, and it cannot be wrested for interpreting the requirement of the' rule regarding continuous service. Moreover, Art. 420 does not define the meaning of the expression "interruption" in the service, and does not provide that unauthorised absence of leave would necessarily result in a break in the service in all circumstances and for all purposes. Article 420 cannot therefore justify the contention that the service of the petitioner ceased to be continuous in the facts and circumstances of this case.
(3.) I may here make a reference to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. , vs. Its Workmen (l), on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner's learned counsel. The meaning of the words "continuous service" came up for consideration before their Lordships, and even though the consideration was in the context of the scheme of gratuity, their Lordships laid down, if I may be permitted to say so, a very clear and workable test that where there is continuance of the relationship of master and servant between an employer and his employee, the service should be held to be continuous. As it is not disputed that this was so in case of the petitioner, I am fortified by the view taken by their Lordships in holding that in the present case also the petitioner's service should be held to be continuous. I have therefore no doubt that the respondents erred in taking the view in the impugned order Ex. 4 which, as has been stated, was conveyed to the petitioner by the endorsement dated December 2, 1969, that he had not put in 5 years' continuous service on July 1, 1969, for purposes of his eligibility for the examination in question. That order is therefore quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner. It will now be open to the respondents to declare the petitioner's result in pursuance of the interim order mentioned in an earlier part of the judgment. I here will be no order as to the (costs. ) .;