CWP No. 22502 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No. 22502 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.09.2011 ASI Sukhwant Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant Present: Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sudipti Sharma, DAG, Punjab for the respondents. ... Surya Kant, J.(Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.22502 of 2010, 19682 of 2010, 13281 of 2009, 15375 of 2009, 19493 of 2009, 3531 of 2010, 6913 of 2010, 22791 of 2010, 4588 of 2009, 4689 of 2009, 543 of 2011 and 5507 of 2011 as the issues involved in these cases are common in nature. For brevity, facts are being extracted from CWP No.22502 of 2010. CWP No. 22502 of 2010 2 The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Punjab Armed Police. He was promoted as Head Constable and was thereafter sent on deputation to the CID in April 1987. He is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8.12.2010 (Annexure P-15) repatriating him to the parent cadre of PAP. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit maintaining that the petitioner cannot claim his continuation on deputation as a matter of right. There is no serious dispute that the issue regarding absorption of the police personnel, who are on deputation with the Intelligence Bureau (CID) for a number of years, has gone up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others, (1997) 8 SCC 372, where in paragraph 21, the following observations were made:- “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 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, CWP No. 22502 of 2010 3 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.” It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the order reproduced above, the Police Department has issued a notification dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure P-16) whereby the 'Intelligence' has been created as a separate cadre in police service. The Police Department has thereafter, drafted the Rules and submitted the same for approval of the State government regarding absorption of the police personnel in the newly created cadre of 'Intelligence Bureau' by following the procedure as prescribed in the Draft Rules. The above stated facts have been acknowledged by the respondents in paragraph 15-A of their reply/affidavit dated 11.2.2011. The draft rules are still under consideration before the competent authority i.e. the State Government. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in CWP No. 22502 of 2010 4 view the fact that the stage is now ripe for formalization of the statutory rules in terms whereof the police personnel like the petitioner, are to be considered for absorption subject to the terms and conditions that may have been mentioned in the Rules, this Court need not go into the merit of the controversy. Suffice it to direct the State Government to take an appropriate decision for notifying the Draft Rules as early as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till such decision is taken and the eligible police personnel are absorbed, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the CID Wing and the impugned order of his repatriation shall remain in abeyance. Writ petition stands disposed of. Dasti. ( Surya Kant ) Judge 12.09.2011 sk.