CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14297 OF 1999 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 31, 2009 SI Satyabir 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: None for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The issue in all the 18 Civil Writ Petition Nos.14297 of 1999 (SI Satyabir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8522 of 1999 (Mulakh Raj Vs. State of Haryana and others), 16716 of 1999 (ASI Harbans Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others), 16743 of 1999 (Jai Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 16773 of 1999 (Bagh Singh,ASI Vs. State of Haryana and others), 16895 of 1999 (SI Kanwar Bahadur Vs. State of Haryana and others), 17438 of 1999 (SI Paras Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others), 871 of 2000 (Bal Kishan Vs. State of Haryana and others), 1359 of 2000 (Shiv Narain SI Vs. State of Haryana and others), 7714 of 2000 (HC Jai Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 7982 of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14297 OF 1999 :{ 2 }: 2000 (ASI Raj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others),8062 of 2000 (Hari Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8752 of 2000 (ASI Ved Pal Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 9660 of 2000 (ASI Umed Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 11496 of 2000 (SI Hawa Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others),11990 of 2000 (ASI Dharambir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), and 12083 of 2000 (HC Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), is common and as such, they are being disposed of together by this common order. In fact, the issue which requires adjudication, is no more res-integra and has been even decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are various police officers holding different ranks and have been deputed to work in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the State. Initially, however, they have been enrolled as Constables in the Police Department and later were sent on deputation to CID. While being on deputation, they earned various promotion on adhoc basis. At the time of filing of these writ petitions, they were holding the rank of Sub Inspector or Assistant Sub Inspectors on adhoc basis. The respondent-authorities, however, took a decision to repatriate all the petitioners to their parent force. The result of this repatriation was that the petitioners were required to go back as Constables. Thus, the repatriation was to result in their reversion from the respective adhoc rank to which these officers have been promoted. They had served CID for long years and, thus, were aggrieved against the order, repatriating them, which would make them to serve as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14297 OF 1999 :{ 3 }: Constables. Certainly such orders could not have been to their liking. Number of writ petitions, thus, came to be filed to challenge the order of repatriation. These writ petitions were dealt with by different Benches (Division as well Single) of this Court. The right of the State to repatriate all these officers, who were similarly situated as the petitioners, was recognized and upheld. The order passed by this Court was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court and, thus, has acquired finality in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. One of the writ petitions filed, this Court had allowed the prayer made therein to a limited extent against which State of Punjab filed a Special Leave Petition, which was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this case is reported as State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others, 1997 (4) RSJ 668. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab. While doing so, the Hon'ble Court has expressed concern about the fate of such officers as is noticed from the following observations in the case of Inder Singh (supra):- “It is in fact an admitted position that Constables on deputation to CID have reached higher ranks and retired from CID in those ranks. A hope, though not true, is instilled in officers like the respondents that they would continue in the CID holding higher ranks till the age of superannuation. The conduct of the appellants now suddenly asking the respondents to go back to their parent departments when they have put in best years of their lives in CID would appear to be rather unjust. It CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14297 OF 1999 :{ 4 }: would have been more appropriate for the appellant to repatriate the respondents after the expiry of the initial period of deputation or at least they should have been told the consequences of their continuing on deputation and sudden repatriation. It would also be more appropriate, considering the fact that the deputation in CID could be for any number of years, that the rules are amended and a separate cadre is created in CID to absorb the officers, if they are on deputation for a number of years. It is submitted before us that Constables who have come on deputation to CID retired while holding higher ranks in CID and they earned their pension on the basis of their holding higher ranks though the pension was being paid by their parent department. This may be on the basis of relevant pension rules as applicable in the State. Now, if the respondents 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.” At the same time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while clarifying the concept of deputation, upheld the right of the respondents to repatriate all such officers. This is so apparent from the following observations made in the case of Inder Singh (supra):- “Concept of “deputation” is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning `Deputation' has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14297 OF 1999 :{ 5 }: meaning of the word `deputation' is of no help. In simple words `deputation' means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation, the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, known his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as well have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above. There is no escape for the respondents now to back to their parent departments and working there as Constables or Head Constables as the case may be.” To balance the equities to an extent, the Supreme Court noticed the observations made by this Court that those officers who had completed 20 years of qualifying service, may seek voluntary retirement to lesser their rigors which they otherwise would have faced if they were reverted back to their parent force. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14297 OF 1999 :{ 6 }: “It is no doubt really harsh on the respondents to be sent back after they have served the CID for number of years in higher rank though on ad hoc basis and now when they go back they have to work either as Constables or Head Constables. It was submitted before us that an employee could seek voluntary retirement after putting in 20 years of qualifying service and that the High Court in the impugned judgment gave option to the respondents to seek voluntary retirement while still working in the CID and holding higher ranks. This option can, however, be limited to only those respondents, who have put in 20 years of qualifying service as per the relevant Rules. In our opinion the High Court was justified in giving such an option to the respondents to seek voluntary retirement. At the time when special leave petitions were filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court, this Court directed that status quo be maintained while staying the impugned judgment of the High Court. The High Court in the writ petitions filed by the respondents granted stay of the orders of repatriation. After the impugned judgment, there was order of status quo by this Court. In this view of the matter, the respondents continued to be in the CID. We affirm the impugned judgment of the High Court to the extent that the respondents who put in 20- years of qualifying service in their parent departments and in CID would be entitled to seek voluntary retirement from the ranks they are holding in CID and the period of qualifying CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14297 OF 1999 :{ 7 }: service would be counted upto the date of this judgment. These options the respondents shall give within 30 days from the date of this judgment. The respondents who do not give such option and those respondents who have not put in 20 years of qualifying service would have to revert back to their parent departments.” Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the order passed by the High Court to the extent that option be given to all those officers who had put in 20 years of qualifying service to seek voluntary retirement from CID from the ranks they were holding. It was further directed that the period of qualifying service would be counted upto the date of said judgment. 30 days' time was given for giving such an option. Subject to this extent, the appeal filed by State of Punjab was allowed and the writ petitions so filed by various officers were ordered to be dismissed. In view of this authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court there would be hardly any scope to interfere in the prayer made in the present writ petitions. All these writ petitions would be dismissed but subject to the same condition as is provided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh (supra). Accordingly, while dismissing these writ petitions, it is directed that the petitioners who had completed 20 years of qualifying service, would be given an option to seek voluntary retirement from the CID in the ranks they are holding and if they do so, they will be deemed to have worked in CID upto the date of this order. Let option be sought from all the eligible petitioners within a period of two months from today and appropriate orders be passed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14297 OF 1999 :{ 8 }: thereon in view of the observations made above. At this stage, Mr.Jaibir Yadav, who is representing some of the petitioners in these petitions, points out that some of the petitioners have already retired. He would also point out that some of the petitioners have either expired or may have expired. The petitioners, who have already retired from CID, shall be deemed to have been retired from CID in the rank they retired and their case of pension be accordingly finalised. The officers who are no more would also be deemed to have been retired from the date of their retirement and their case of pension or family pension be finalised accordingly. Subject to the above observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. July 31, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE