L.P.A. No. 119 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 119 of 2004 Date of Decision: 09- 09- 2008 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants v. Shri Kishan ....Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana for the appellants. Mr.S.N.Saini, Advocate for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. The present appeal has been filed by State of Haryana aggrieved against the judgment dated 20.10.2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. In the grounds of appeal, appellants had stated that respondent Shri Kishan was enrolled as a Constable on 2.1.1965. He discharged his duties in the Police Department upto August, 1995. State of Haryana through Superintendent of Police, Rohtak conveyed its decision to the employees of the Police Department which reads as under:- “From S.P.Rohtak L.P.A. No. 119 of 2004 [2] To All Gos, Inspt. (SHOs, Steno, OASI, CRC) No.21737-57 dated 11.7.95(.) Copy of the TPM No.387-dated 10.7.1995 from Police Haryana to all distt. SPs in Haryana beigns(.) Reports have been received that some constables wants to seek voluntary retirement so as to get their sons recruited in their place (.) You may grant permission for such retirement provided the applicants are ready to deposit their three months salary and vacate their constabulary number for their sons towards off the possibility of withdrawing the retirement applications before expiry of three month(,) Ends(.) For necessary action(.) Sd/- Superintendent of Police, Rohtak 11/7.” In pursuance of the above communication, respondent was allowed to proceed on voluntary retirement with effect from 31.8.1995, Annexure P-2 and in his place, his son Jatinder Kumar was appointed as Constable who joined his duties on 11.9.1995. The appointment of son of the respondent made in pursuance to Annexure P-1, a communication reproduced above, was challenged in a writ petition. On 16.2.1996, this Court allowed the writ petition and pronounced selection and appointment of the son of the respondent and near relatives of the Police officials as unconstitutional. The judgment of this Court was impugned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by passing an interim order, the operation of the judgment was stayed on 8.7.1996, Annexure P-6. A perusal of Annexure P-5 reveals that stay was not granted in favour those who were appointed against the quota reserved for wards of retired police personnels. Finally, the Special Leave Petition was decided on 17.1.2001 vide Annexure P-7 in which it was observed as under:- L.P.A. No. 119 of 2004 [3] “Some of the selectees, who were selected on account of voluntary retirement of the existing police personnel, their selection also has been quashed by the learned judge of the High Court and their parents have been brought into service by virtue of the order of the High Court. Those persons would also be eligible to make application and participate pursuant to the fresh advertisement and they will have to compete as fresh recruits and not as dependents of the voluntary retirees since there is no provision in the recruitment rules of 1998 for making such appointment on the basis of the voluntary retirement of the existing police personnel. In their case also the age relaxation should apply.” Respondent Shri Kishan preferred Civil Writ Petition No.5910 of 2001, wherein he claimed that he be treated in service from the date of his voluntary retirement i.e. 31.8.1995 till the date of his superannuation on 8.10.2000 and he be paid all arrears of pay and allowances during interregnums period. The writ petition was disposed of on 26.4.2001 directing the appellants to consider the representation of respondent Shri Kishan. Vide Annexure P-8 the representation was declined. This was made subject matter of Civil Writ Petition No.14002 of 2001, which was disposed of vide impugned judgment dated 29.10.2003. Learned Single Judge noticed that vide Annexure R-4 attached with the writ petition, respondent was reinstated into service from the date of voluntary retirement and as per orders of the Government, all those police officials who proceeded on voluntary retirement were to be treated on duty for all intents and purposes including pay and allowances. In the judgment, it has been L.P.A. No. 119 of 2004 [4] noticed as under:- “.....The police officials who had taken voluntary retirement from service, in order to have their sons and relatives recruited, were directed to be taken back into service, forthwith, by issuing orders of their reinstatement and directing them to join the service stipulated in the order. It was further ordered that those police officials shall be treated as on duty for all intents and purposes including pay and allowances during the interregnums, that is, from the date of voluntary retirement to the date of their joining the service within the time stipulated in the orders of reinstatement, issued in pursuance of that order. The petitioner was also, accordingly, re-instated in service on 26.2.1996, vide Annexure P4.” Learned Single Judge has noticed that vide Civil Writ Petition No.13942 of 1995, the police officials in question who had earlier taken voluntary retirement in order to get their sons/wards employed, were ordered to be treated on duty for all intents and purposes including pay and allowances during the interregnums. It also noticed the contention of the respondent that out of all 103 police officials, except the respondent other remaining 102 ex-police officials had been paid the salary and also given all other service benefits. It was also recorded in the impugned judgment that the correctness of this contention of the respondent had not been disputed by the appellants. The learned Single Judge had also noticed the relevant portion of the mandate given by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.13942 of 1995. The learned Single Judge also noticed that it was because of a L.P.A. No. 119 of 2004 [5] stay and the interim orders passed by the Apex Court that respondent was reinstated into service on 26.2.1996 and he obtained the age of superannuation on 8.10.2000 before the matter was finally disposed of by the Apex Court on 17.1.2001. Thus, the learned Single Judge concluded as under:- “.....The affected persons, in all, were 103 in number, and it was not disputed that out of them, 102 were, thereafter, taken back in service and treated as on duty for all intents and purposes, including the pay and allowances, for the period starting from the date of voluntary retirement to the date of their joining the service within the stipulated time. But, the petitioner had, in the meanwhile, crossed the age of superannuation, on 8.10.2000. He, of course, could not, therefore, have been taken back into service. But, at the same time, he could not have been legitimately denied the salary and all other service benefits for the period he had to remain out of job, for no fault of his but due to the above-referred to orders of the court, passed in the on-going litigation. By virtue of the directions of this court contained in judgment dated 16.2.1996 (supra), he was legally entitled to be treated as on duty for the period he remained out of job viz. Period within effect from 5.9.1996 till he attained the age of superannuation on 8.10.2000. And, as the respondents had declined all these benefits to him, the impugned order passed by them, Annexure P8, is liable to be quashed, and it is so ordered.” We have heard learned counsel for the State. It has been stated L.P.A. No. 119 of 2004 [6] that since the respondent attained the superannuation during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, he is not entitled to the relief granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court. We are unable to accept this contention. We find the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge to be just, in the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, no interference is called for and the present appeal is dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) JUDGE JUDGE September 9, 2008. RC