CWP No. 3973 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 8.3. 2010 Sub Inspector Jagdish Sharma ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.RK Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr.RB Malik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner was enrolled as Constable in 3rd Bn.HAP Madhuban on 16.1.73. He was deputed in CID on 9.9.75. While being on deputation, he was promoted as ASI and thereafter as Sub Inspector. Vide order dated 3.3.2010 (Annexure P-2), the request of the petitioner for voluntary CWP No. 3973 of 2010 2 retirement has not been acceded to and the petitioner has been ordered to be re-patriated and reverted to his substantive rank by observing that he cannot be allowed to seek voluntary retirement as Sub Inspector. The petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid order (Annexure P-2). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the petitioner has earned qualifying service, a pre-requisite condition for seeking voluntary retirement. The issue involved in this writ petition is no more res integra. While deciding a similar issue, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others vs. Inder Singh & Others 1997 (4) RSJ 668 has observed as under:- “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 CWP No. 3973 of 2010 3 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 CWP No. 3973 of 2010 4 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 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 CWP No. 3973 of 2010 5 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, know 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:- “It is no doubt really harsh on the respondents to be CWP No. 3973 of 2010 6 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 CWP No. 3973 of 2010 7 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 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. In view of this authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexures P-2) rejecting the request of the petitioner for seeking voluntary retirement from the post of Sub Inspector are hereby quashed. The CWP No. 3973 of 2010 8 respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement from the post of Sub Inspector, in accordance with the observations/directions made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Inder Singh and others (supra) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 8.3.1.2010 MFK