CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7723 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 09 ,2010 Sub Inspector Attar Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. N. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable on 2.10.1974. Subsequently, he was appointed as Executive Clerk Cadre (Account Branch) with effect from 8.8.1994. He was promoted as Head Constable in the said cadre on 11.1.1990. Somewhere in the year 1996, the petitioner and another Constable Mohinder Pal Singh were allowed mutual transfer while they were serving in different ranges. Subsequently, on 26.10.2005, direction was issued to repatriate the petitioner as well as Constable Mohinder Pal Singh CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7723 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: to their parent range. The petitioner as well as ASI Mohinder Pal Singh challenged the said order by filing Civil Writ Petition No.17764 of 2005. The Director General of Police, Haryana, filed an affidavit in response, stating that these Constables may not be repatriated to their parent ranges but their seniority would be maintained in their parent cadre. The petitioner accepted this arrangement. The petitioner became due for superannuation on 30.12.2009 and order in this regard was issued on 8.12.2009. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner received an order revealing that the promotion given to him in Hisar range stood withdrawn with immediate effect, just before the date of his retirement. This was done without issuing any show cause notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Terming this action to be illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to impugn the said order. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner belongs to an Executive Clerical Cadre (Accounts Branch) and while he was working as Head Constable, he mutually sought transfer with Head Constable Mohinder Pal Singh, who was from Jind District. Reference is also made to the order whereby the petitioner as well as Mohinder Pal Singh had challenged the order of their repatriation. On that basis, the transfer orders of Executive Clerical Cadre were issued on 22.8.2008 and the petitioner was transferred from Faridabad to Jind. The lien of the petitioner was maintained in the South Range, Rewari, which was his parent range. The seniority of the petitioner was re-fixed. He was given deemed date of promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector with effect from 11.7.2003. It was the date CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7723 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: when his junior ASI Sube Singh was promoted. It is on this basis that promotion given to him as Assistant Sub Inspector with effect from 4.1.1999 and as Sub Inspector with effect from 29.7.2009 and confirmation in the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector with effect from 31.1.2001 at Hisar Range stand withdrawn. It is accordingly prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. By Placing reliance on judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others, 1997(4) RSJ 668, the counsel contends that the petitioner may be allowed to retire in the rank held by him. That was a case where some Constables of Punjab Police were sent on deputation to work in the Criminal Investigation Department. They remained on deputation for two decades on adhoc basis and reached to the rank of Sub Inspector on adhoc basis. They were sought to be repatriated to their parent department. The said police employees had challenged the said order as they were made to go back to the posts of Constable or Head Constables. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no escape for such employees to go back to their parent department and work there as Constables or Head Constables, as the case may be, unless they had earned promotion in their parent department. The Hon'ble Court, on equitable consideration, had made some observations that if these persons are now asked to go back to their parent department and work their as Constables or Head Constables, their emoluments would be reduced considerably and they would be deprived of getting higher pension when they retire. While affirming the High Court order, the Hon'ble Supreme CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7723 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: Court observed that an option be given to all those employees, who have put in 20 years qualifying service to seek voluntary retirement from the CID in the ranks they were holding and the S.L.P was disposed of. These observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in peculiar facts of the said case, where the Government had kept such employees on deputation for number of years. The said employees had worked outside their cadre and had attained the rank of Sub Inspector and so were given option to seek retirement in the rank they were holding instead of reversion. The issue before the Supreme Court arose because of the action of the Government. In the instant case, however, the petitioner had gone outside his cadre on a request made by him on mutual basis with another employee. When the respondents wanted to set-right this position and had ordered the petitioner to go back to his parent cadre, he approached this Court. The respondents had conceded to keep the petitioner in different cadre but with a condition that he will maintain his seniority in the parent cadre. That position was accepted by the petitioner as well as other Constable on whose place the petitioner had been mutually transferred. Even as per the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has to come back to the parent cadre and hold the rank which he would have earned in the parent cadre as per his seniority. The prayer of the petitioner that he would not claim seniority of the parent cadre, which he had in the other range and that he be permitted to retire in the rank which he had held, can not be acceptable in view of the factual position in this case. It is the own doing of the petitioner CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7723 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: and he had volunteered to maintain seniority in his parent cadre. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation to the respondents in the light of observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh (supra). It is for the respondents to consider if the petitioner can be permitted to retire in the rank of Sub Inspector. It would not be appropriate to pass any direction in this regard. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. December 09,2010 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE