Civil Writ Petition No.14415 of 2006 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 14, 2009 SI Phool Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was deputed to work on deputation with CID. After nearly 28 years, he is now transferred back to his parent unit as Constable. The relief claimed in the writ petition is covered by a decision in the case of Civil Writ Petition No.14297 of 1999 (SI Civil Writ Petition No.14415 of 2006 (O&M) : 2 : Satyabir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on 31.7.2009. The operative part of the order reads as under:- “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 thereon in view of the observations made above.” Satyabir Singh's case (supra) has been decided on the basis of State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others, 1997 (4) RSJ 668. Hon'ble Supreme Court felt concern with the fate of such officers in the following term:- “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 would have been more appropriate for the appellant to repatriate the respondents after the expiry of the initial Civil Writ Petition No.14415 of 2006 (O&M) : 3 : 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.” 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. Civil Writ Petition No.14415 of 2006 (O&M) : 4 : The present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order passed by this court in Satyabir Singh's case (supra) and Inder Singh's case (supra). There shall, however, be no order as to costs. September 14, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE