“ the Grievance of the Petitioner Is That Vide Order Vs. State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1064279
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-09-2013
Appellant“ the Grievance of the Petitioner Is That Vide Order
RespondentState of Punjab and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh amended cwp no.14970 of 2010 date of decision :9. 5.2013 gurmeet singh (deceased) through his wife kirpal kaur ....petitioner versus state of punjab and others ....respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice augustine george masih present:- mr.sandeep wadhawan, advocate, for the petitioner. ms.monica chhibber sharma, dag punjab. augustine george masih, j. this writ petition was filed by gurmeet singh, challenging the order dated 13.7.2010 (annexure-p-4) issued by the inspector general of police, punjab armed police, jalandhar cantt., whereby permission granted for absorbing/merging the name of the petitioner to the post of constable, vide office order dated 10.2.2009, stands withdrawn on the ground that the said order is patently illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and discriminatory. during the pendency of the present writ petition, gurmeet singh died on 2.10.2010. his wife kirpal kaur was impleaded as petitioner in his place. on 3.8.2011, the case came up for hearing when following order was passed :- amended cwp no.14970 of 2010 -2- “ the grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 23.8.2010, a direction was given to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for absorption and regularization of the petitioner to the post of constable. learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has served the respondents for 18 years.he has further referred to annexure-p-3 whereby the permission granted for merging/absorbing the name of the petitioner to the post of constable has been withdrawn and the number allotted to him to be empty without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. the reason assigned for withdrawal as against the name of the petitioner is that in a criminal case registered against the petitioner, he has been acquitted by the trial court while giving benefit of doubt. in compliance of the revised policy dated 11.5.2009 (annexure-r-1) the name of the petitioner for his absorption as constable has been approved vide office order dated 18.2.2010. during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has since died on 2.10.2010. he is survived by his wife and two minot children. it is not disputed that the petitioner has been serving as spo w.e.f.1992 and even during the tiral, he was working as spo. thereafter, he was acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt, vide order/judgment dated 21.9.2005. even after his acquittal, he had served the department for more than six years.accordingly, keeping in view the instructions issued vide director general of police, punjab, chandigarh's office letter dated 11.5.2009 (annexure-r- 1).necessary approval regarding absorption the petitioner as constable in 1st irb patiala has been withdrawn vide office order dated 13.7.2010 (annexure- p-3).in the present case, since the petitioner has already amended cwp no.14970 of 2010 -3- died he is no longer going to serve in the state, so, his case could not be rejected in view of the instructions dated 11.5.2009 for regularization, as he had already served during the pendency of the trial and after acquittal his case should be considered in view of 2008 instructions. adjourned to 19.9.2011. however, respondent no.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.a reply in this regard be filed on the next date of hearing.” in pursuance to this order, the inspector general of police, punjab armed police, jalandhar cantt. passed order dated 19.1.2012 again rejecting the claim of deceased gurmeet singh, the husband of the petitioner, for regularization and granting him the constablory number, absorbing him as a constable. thereafter, an application was moved for amendment of the writ petition for challenging the order dated 19.1.2012 (annexure-p-6).passed during the pendency of the writ petition. the said application was allowed on 20.3.2012. counsel for the petitioner contends that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as a special police officer (in short 'spo') on daily wages on 9.9.1992 and was allotted spo no.234-rural amritsar, majitha. an fir bearing no.165 dated 27.10.1999 under sections 379, 411, 171, 168, 170, 171-a, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 ipc, police station 'a' division, amritsar, was registered against the husband of the petitioner deceased gurmeet singh. after completion of investigation, challan was presented and on 25.3.2002, charge was framed against accused gurmeet singh, husband of the petitioner, under section 411 ipc. despite availing several opportunities, the prosecution failed to lead any evidence against the accused gurmeet amended cwp no.14970 of 2010 -4- singh. vide order dated 9.9.2005, the trial court closed the prosecution evidence and thereafter, on 21.9.2005 (annexure-p-2) passed the order of acquittal of the accused gurmeet singh for the charge levelled against him by giving him benefit of doubt. this order of acquittal has not been challenged by the state and, therefore, has attained finality. during the pendency of the trial, gurmeet singh continued to serve as spo in police department without any break whatsoever and was never removed or suspended or discharged from service on account of registration of criminal case against him. even after acquittal, he served the department for more than five years.as per the policy framed by the respondents for absorption of spos on the posts of constables, order dated 18.2.2010 was passed chalking out the list of special police officers to be absorbed as constables, which included the name of gurmeet singh to be absorbed in the firs.indian reserve battalion (in short 'irb').patiala. in pursuance thereto, a medical board was constituted at pap hospital, jalandhar, where the petitioner was examined and was declared fit for absorption as constable in irb. however, vide order dated 13.7.2010 (annexure-p-4).the permission granted to spo gurmeet singh for absorption as a constable, vide order dated 18.2.2010, has been withdrawn due to the reason that case no.165 dated 27.10.1999 was registered against gurmeet singh, husband of the petitioner, in which he has been acquitted, vide order dated 21.9.2005 by giving him benefit of doubt. this order is stated to have been passed in accordance with and in compliance with the instructions/revised policy issued by the respondents, vide letter dated 11.5.2009 and standing orders no.2/1997, issued in relation to the recruitment of spos. amended cwp no.14970 of 2010 -5- this order was challenged by gurmeet singh by filing cwp no.14970 of 2010 on 19.8.2010. notice of motion was issued by this court on 23.8.2010, but in the meantime, petitioner died while on duty on 2.10.2010. wife of deceased gurmeet singh (petitioner).namely, kirpal kaur was impleaded as petitioner in his place. this case came up for hearing on 3.8.2011 when this court directed the inspector general of police, pap jalandhar cantt.-respondent no.3 to re-consider the case of gurmeet singh, husband of the petitioner, which order has been reproduced above. in pursuance to the said order of this court, the claim of the husband of the petitioner stands rejected again, vide order dated 19.1.2012 (annexure-p-6) on the ground that the acquittal of the husband of the petitioner is based upon technical grounds, i.e.for non-examination of prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the case of husband of the petitioner being covered against him as per the provisions contained in rule 16.3(1) of the punjab police rules, 1934, gurmeet singh was not entitled to absorption as a constable in the police force. he contends that the inspector general of police-respondent no.3 has wrongly interpreted the acquittal of the husband of the petitioner, vide judgment dated 21.9.2005. although, the wording of the order passed by the trial court indicates that it is on the ground by giving him benefit of doubt, but as a matter of fact, in absence of any evidence at all, it cannot be said to be acquittal on technical grounds, but is a clear acquittal. the impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and the husband of the petitioner be held entitled to regularization of services including absorption as a constable alongwith other consequential benefits arising therefrom, especially when medical fitness of the husband of the petitioner has also been assessed by the medical board to be fit for absorption as constable in irb. amended cwp no.14970 of 2010 -6- counsel for respondents, on the other hand, contends that the husband of the petitioner had been involved in a criminal case for offence of retaining a stolen scooter. in this case, he has been acquitted merely on the ground that despite various opportunities having been given, no evidence was produced by the prosecution. this amounts to acquittal of the husband of the petitioner on technical grounds and, therefore, the rejection of the claim of the husband of the petitioner is in accordance with law. i have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. the admitted facts are that, vide order dated 18.2.2010, permission was granted for absorbing/merging the name of the husband of the petitioner as a constable alongwith others.the said order was withdrawn on 13.7.2010 (annexure-p-4) on the ground that case fir no.165 dated 27.10.1999 under sections 379, 411, 171, 168, 170, 171-a, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 ipc, police station 'a' division, amritsar, was registered against the husband of the petitioner deceased gurmeet singh, in which the husband of the petitioner was acquitted by the judicial magistrate 2nd class, amritsar, vide order dated 21.9.2005 (annexure-p-2).by giving him benefit of doubt. since the acquittal of the husband of the petitioner was based on technical grounds, he was not entitled to enlistment as a constable in the indian reserve border. this conclusion was drawn by the respondents as per the memo dated 11.5.2009, issued by the director general of police, punjab, revising the policy for not taking special police officers in service, who were involved in criminal cases during the period they were spos and subsequently acquitted by the courts. reliance upon the order dated 19.1.2012 (annexure- p-6) and rule 16.3 (1) of the punjab police rules, 1934 (in short 'pp rules') amended cwp no.14970 of 2010 -7- has been placed to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to be absorbed as a constable in the police force. instructions dated 14.5.2008, issued by the director general of police, punjab, has also been referred to wherein it was decided that as a policy as far as absorption of spos as constable is concerned, spos should be treated at par with the punjab police personnel. this letter becomes the basis for treating the husband of the petitioner, who was spo, at par with the punjab police personnel thus, attracting the application of punjab police rules, 1934, to the claim of the husband of the petitioner gurmeet singh. at this stage, reproduction of the said rule would be beneficial, which reads as follows :- “action following on a judicial acquittal- (1) when a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case, whether actually led or not, unless :- a. the criminal charge has failed on technical ground; or b. in the opinion of the court or of the superintendent of police, the prosecution witness has been won over; or c. the court has held in its judgment that an offence was actually committed and that suspicion rests upon the police officer concerned; or d. the evidence cited in the criminal case discloses facts unconnected with the charge before the court which justify departmental proceedings on a different charge; or e. additional evidence admissible under rule 16.25 (1) in departmental proceedings is available.” amended cwp no.14970 of 2010 -8- respondent no.3 has passed his order dated 19.1.2012 based on rule 16.3(1)(a) of the pp rules by asserting that the criminal charge has failed on technical grounds. but this reason of the said respondent cannot be accepted when seen in the light of the concluding part of the judgment dated 21.9.2005 (annexure-p-2).passed by the judicial magistrate, 2nd class, amritsar, which reads as follows :- “6. the charge in the case was framed on 25.3.2002. since then, the prosecution availed numerous opportunities including three last opportunities but the prosecution could not examine even a single witness. the prosecution evidence was closed on 9.9.2005. the prosecution has miserably failed to produce incriminating evidence against the accused. accordingly, giving the benefit of doubt, i hereby acquit accused for the charge levelled against him. his bail bond and surety bonds stands discharged. file be consigned to the record room.” a perusal of the above indicates that there was no evidence against the petitioner at all as the prosecution could not examine even a single witness, despite numerous opportunities including three last opportunities granted to the prosecution to produce its evidence. it has been clearly mentioned that the prosecution has miserably failed to produce incriminating evidence against the accused. the tenot and wording of the order of acquittal shows that it is not an acquittal on technical ground, but is a clear acquittal due to non-availability of any evidence against the husband of the petitioner. merely because the judicial magistrate, while passing the order of acquittal of gurmeet singh for the charges levelled against him, has mentioned that amended cwp no.14970 of 2010 -9- 'giving the benefit of doubt', it cannot be so read literally as that is not the intent and spirit of the order. it clearly shows 'honourable acquittal' fully exonerating the husband of the petitioner of the charges framed against him. the impugned order thus, cannot sustain. in view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 13.7.2010 (annexure-p-4) and order dated 19.1.2012 (annexure-p-6) are hereby quashed. gurmeet singh (deceased) husband of the petitioner is held entitled to absorption/merger in irb as a constable and he be treated as absorbed as a regular constable alongwith the spos, who were granted permission for absorbing/merging their names, vide order dated 18.2.2010. petitioner is held entitled to the grant of all consequential benefits which be released to her within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (augustine george masih) judge 9 5.2013 sjks
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Amended CWP No.14970 of 2010 Date of Decision :

9. 5.2013 Gurmeet Singh (deceased) through his wife Kirpal Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Mr.Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

This writ petition was filed by Gurmeet Singh, challenging the order dated 13.7.2010 (Annexure-P-4) issued by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt., whereby permission granted for absorbing/merging the name of the petitioner to the post of Constable, vide office order dated 10.2.2009, stands withdrawn on the ground that the said order is patently illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and discriminatory.

During the pendency of the present writ petition, Gurmeet Singh died on 2.10.2010.

His wife Kirpal Kaur was impleaded as petitioner in his place.

On 3.8.2011, the case came up for hearing when following order was passed :- Amended CWP No.14970 of 2010 -2- “ The grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 23.8.2010, a direction was given to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for absorption and regularization of the petitioner to the post of Constable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has served the respondents for 18 yeaRs.He has further referred to Annexure-P-3 whereby the permission granted for merging/absorbing the name of the petitioner to the post of Constable has been withdrawn and the number allotted to him to be empty without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The reason assigned for withdrawal as against the name of the petitioner is that in a criminal case registered against the petitioner, he has been acquitted by the trial Court while giving benefit of doubt.

In compliance of the revised policy dated 11.5.2009 (Annexure-R-1) the name of the petitioner for his absorption as Constable has been approved vide office order dated 18.2.2010.

During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has since died on 2.10.2010.

He is survived by his wife and two minot children.

It is not disputed that the petitioner has been serving as SPO w.e.f.1992 and even during the tiral, he was working as SPO.

Thereafter, he was acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt, vide order/judgment dated 21.9.2005.

Even after his acquittal, he had served the department for more than six yeaRs.Accordingly, keeping in view the instructions issued vide Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh's office letter dated 11.5.2009 (Annexure-R- 1).necessary approval regarding absorption the petitioner as Constable in 1st IRB Patiala has been withdrawn vide office order dated 13.7.2010 (Annexure- P-3).In the present case, since the petitioner has already Amended CWP No.14970 of 2010 -3- died he is no longer going to serve in the State, so, his case could not be rejected in view of the instructions dated 11.5.2009 for regularization, as he had already served during the pendency of the trial and after acquittal his case should be considered in view of 2008 instructions.

Adjourned to 19.9.2011.

However, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate ordeRs.A reply in this regard be filed on the next date of hearing.”

In pursuance to this order, the Inspector General of Police, Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt.

passed order dated 19.1.2012 again rejecting the claim of deceased Gurmeet Singh, the husband of the petitioner, for regularization and granting him the constablory number, absorbing him as a Constable.

Thereafter, an application was moved for amendment of the writ petition for challenging the order dated 19.1.2012 (Annexure-P-6).passed during the pendency of the writ petition.

The said application was allowed on 20.3.2012.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as a Special Police Officer (in short 'SPO') on daily wages on 9.9.1992 and was allotted SPO No.234-Rural Amritsar, Majitha.

An FIR bearing No.165 dated 27.10.1999 under Sections 379, 411, 171, 168, 170, 171-A, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station 'A' Division, Amritsar, was registered against the husband of the petitioner deceased Gurmeet Singh.

After completion of investigation, challan was presented and on 25.3.2002, charge was framed against accused Gurmeet Singh, husband of the petitioner, under Section 411 IPC.

Despite availing several opportunities, the prosecution failed to lead any evidence against the accused Gurmeet Amended CWP No.14970 of 2010 -4- Singh.

Vide order dated 9.9.2005, the trial Court closed the prosecution evidence and thereafter, on 21.9.2005 (Annexure-P-2) passed the order of acquittal of the accused Gurmeet Singh for the charge levelled against him by giving him benefit of doubt.

This order of acquittal has not been challenged by the State and, therefore, has attained finality.

During the pendency of the trial, Gurmeet Singh continued to serve as SPO in police department without any break whatsoever and was never removed or suspended or discharged from service on account of registration of criminal case against him.

Even after acquittal, he served the department for more than five yeaRs.As per the policy framed by the respondents for absorption of SPOs on the posts of Constables, order dated 18.2.2010 was passed chalking out the list of Special Police Officers to be absorbed as Constables, which included the name of Gurmeet Singh to be absorbed in the FiRs.Indian Reserve Battalion (in short 'IRB').Patiala.

In pursuance thereto, a Medical Board was constituted at PAP Hospital, Jalandhar, where the petitioner was examined and was declared fit for absorption as Constable in IRB.

However, vide order dated 13.7.2010 (Annexure-P-4).the permission granted to SPO Gurmeet Singh for absorption as a Constable, vide order dated 18.2.2010, has been withdrawn due to the reason that case No.165 dated 27.10.1999 was registered against Gurmeet Singh, husband of the petitioner, in which he has been acquitted, vide order dated 21.9.2005 by giving him benefit of doubt.

This order is stated to have been passed in accordance with and in compliance with the instructions/revised policy issued by the respondents, vide letter dated 11.5.2009 and Standing Orders No.2/1997, issued in relation to the recruitment of SPOs.

Amended CWP No.14970 of 2010 -5- This order was challenged by Gurmeet Singh by filing CWP No.14970 of 2010 on 19.8.2010.

Notice of motion was issued by this Court on 23.8.2010, but in the meantime, petitioner died while on duty on 2.10.2010.

Wife of deceased Gurmeet Singh (petitioner).namely, Kirpal Kaur was impleaded as petitioner in his place.

This case came up for hearing on 3.8.2011 when this Court directed the Inspector General of Police, PAP Jalandhar Cantt.-respondent No.3 to re-consider the case of Gurmeet Singh, husband of the petitioner, which order has been reproduced above.

In pursuance to the said order of this Court, the claim of the husband of the petitioner stands rejected again, vide order dated 19.1.2012 (Annexure-P-6) on the ground that the acquittal of the husband of the petitioner is based upon technical grounds, i.e.for non-examination of prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the case of husband of the petitioner being covered against him as per the provisions contained in Rule 16.3(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Gurmeet Singh was not entitled to absorption as a Constable in the police force.

He contends that the Inspector General of Police-respondent No.3 has wrongly interpreted the acquittal of the husband of the petitioner, vide judgment dated 21.9.2005.

Although, the wording of the order passed by the trial Court indicates that it is on the ground by giving him benefit of doubt, but as a matter of fact, in absence of any evidence at all, it cannot be said to be acquittal on technical grounds, but is a clear acquittal.

The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and the husband of the petitioner be held entitled to regularization of services including absorption as a Constable alongwith other consequential benefits arising therefrom, especially when medical fitness of the husband of the petitioner has also been assessed by the Medical Board to be fit for absorption as Constable in IRB.

Amended CWP No.14970 of 2010 -6- Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, contends that the husband of the petitioner had been involved in a criminal case for offence of retaining a stolen scooter.

In this case, he has been acquitted merely on the ground that despite various opportunities having been given, no evidence was produced by the prosecution.

This amounts to acquittal of the husband of the petitioner on technical grounds and, therefore, the rejection of the claim of the husband of the petitioner is in accordance with law.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

The admitted facts are that, vide order dated 18.2.2010, permission was granted for absorbing/merging the name of the husband of the petitioner as a Constable alongwith otheRs.The said order was withdrawn on 13.7.2010 (Annexure-P-4) on the ground that case FIR No.165 dated 27.10.1999 under Sections 379, 411, 171, 168, 170, 171-A, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station 'A' Division, Amritsar, was registered against the husband of the petitioner deceased Gurmeet Singh, in which the husband of the petitioner was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Amritsar, vide order dated 21.9.2005 (Annexure-P-2).by giving him benefit of doubt.

Since the acquittal of the husband of the petitioner was based on technical grounds, he was not entitled to enlistment as a Constable in the Indian Reserve Border.

This conclusion was drawn by the respondents as per the memo dated 11.5.2009, issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab, revising the policy for not taking Special Police Officers in service, who were involved in criminal cases during the period they were SPOs and subsequently acquitted by the Courts.

Reliance upon the order dated 19.1.2012 (Annexure- P-6) and Rule 16.3 (1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short 'PP Rules') Amended CWP No.14970 of 2010 -7- has been placed to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to be absorbed as a Constable in the police force.

Instructions dated 14.5.2008, issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab, has also been referred to wherein it was decided that as a policy as far as absorption of SPOs as Constable is concerned, SPOs should be treated at par with the Punjab Police personnel.

This letter becomes the basis for treating the husband of the petitioner, who was SPO, at par with the Punjab Police personnel thus, attracting the application of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, to the claim of the husband of the petitioner Gurmeet Singh.

At this stage, reproduction of the said Rule would be beneficial, which reads as follows :- “Action following on a judicial acquittal- (1) When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal Court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case, whether actually led or not, unless :- a.

The criminal charge has failed on technical ground; or b.

In the opinion of the Court or of the Superintendent of Police, the prosecution witness has been won over; or c.

The Court has held in its judgment that an offence was actually committed and that suspicion rests upon the police officer concerned; or d.

The evidence cited in the criminal case discloses facts unconnected with the charge before the Court which justify departmental proceedings on a different charge; or e.

Additional evidence admissible under Rule 16.25 (1) in departmental proceedings is available.”

Amended CWP No.14970 of 2010 -8- Respondent No.3 has passed his order dated 19.1.2012 based on Rule 16.3(1)(a) of the PP Rules by asserting that the criminal charge has failed on technical grounds.

But this reason of the said respondent cannot be accepted when seen in the light of the concluding part of the judgment dated 21.9.2005 (Annexure-P-2).passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Amritsar, which reads as follows :- “6.

The charge in the case was framed on 25.3.2002.

Since then, the prosecution availed numerous opportunities including three last opportunities but the prosecution could not examine even a single witness.

The prosecution evidence was closed on 9.9.2005.

The prosecution has miserably failed to produce incriminating evidence against the accused.

Accordingly, giving the benefit of doubt, I hereby acquit accused for the charge levelled against him.

His bail bond and surety bonds stands discharged.

File be consigned to the record room.”

A perusal of the above indicates that there was no evidence against the petitioner at all as the prosecution could not examine even a single witness, despite numerous opportunities including three last opportunities granted to the prosecution to produce its evidence.

It has been clearly mentioned that the prosecution has miserably failed to produce incriminating evidence against the accused.

The tenot and wording of the order of acquittal shows that it is not an acquittal on technical ground, but is a clear acquittal due to non-availability of any evidence against the husband of the petitioner.

Merely because the Judicial Magistrate, while passing the order of acquittal of Gurmeet Singh for the charges levelled against him, has mentioned that Amended CWP No.14970 of 2010 -9- 'giving the benefit of doubt', it cannot be so read literally as that is not the intent and spirit of the order.

It clearly shows 'honourable acquittal' fully exonerating the husband of the petitioner of the charges framed against him.

The impugned order thus, cannot sustain.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 13.7.2010 (Annexure-P-4) and order dated 19.1.2012 (Annexure-P-6) are hereby quashed.

Gurmeet Singh (deceased) husband of the petitioner is held entitled to absorption/merger in IRB as a Constable and he be treated as absorbed as a regular Constable alongwith the SPOs, who were granted permission for absorbing/merging their names, vide order dated 18.2.2010.

Petitioner is held entitled to the grant of all consequential benefits which be released to her within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 9 5.2013 sjks