1. The petitioners, Muhammad Ali Qureshi, Sub-Inspector, Special Branch, and 18 others similarly placed police officials have instituted this petition against the Secretary, Home Department, Government of the Punjab and four others under the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The prayer having been made by (lie petitioners is that a direction may loc. Issued to the respondents to include the petitioners in Punjab Police Force created under the provisions of the Police Act, 1861 and the Police Rules, 1934 (both hereinafter to be called as "Act and "Rules"). This petition was admitted to regular hearing to consider the questions raised therein. The notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents were also directed to submit a report and parawise comments on the controversy. The requisite comments have already been sent and are available on record. An attempt was made to draw distinction between the petitioners' cadre of police and the ordinary police force vide minutes of the Law and Order Meeting held on 18-7-1987 in the Civil Secretariat, Lahore, under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister, Government of the Punjab, vide Annexure `A'.
2. In other words, it was noted (hat the petitioners belonged to a different cadre of police and that they had nothing to do with the ordinary police established under the above-quoted law. Feeling dissatisfied with the result of the meeting aforesaid, the petitioners have approached this Court in these proceedings.
2. It is contended by Mian Dilawar Mahmood, learned counsel for the petitioners that the minutes of the meeting vide Annexure `A' cannot assume the status of law and as such they deserve to be set aside on that score alone. Learned counsel maintains that the plea of the petitioners has been admitted in clear terms by the contesting-respondents in their written statements. Learned counsel has particularly drawn the attention of the Court to para. 2 of the written comments sent by the Inspector-General of Police, respondent No. 2, which are as follows:-- "The Special Branch, Punjab, has always been part of the Police Force according to the Police Act and the rules made therein."
3. Similarly, para 2 of the written comments submitted by the Home Secretary, Government of the Punjab, respondent No. 1, reads as follows:-- 'The Special Branch, Punjab, has always been considered part of the Police Force within the meaning of the Police Act and the rules made thereunder:"
4. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, the then learned Advocate-General, Punjab, also gave his comprehensive opinion in writing to the Inspector-General, Punjab, vide his D.O. Letter No. 2346/AG, dated 21-2-1993 to say that the minutes of the meeting cannot be given the status of law and the rules made thereunder and that the petitioners shall have to be considered as a part and parcel of the Punjab Police. They would' also enjoy the same status as was being enjoyed by the members of the ordinary police force. In pith and substance, his opinion is as follows:-- "I may be authorised to submit in the High Court that the petitioners would be treated at par with the other members of the police force and are entitled to be transferred to the District Police like other Police Officers and sent for statutory training at Police College Sehala in terms of the Police Rules."
5. Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Additional Advocate-General was, however, unable to adopt the opinion having been given in writing by the then learned Advocate General, Punjab. He, therefore, asks for more time to enable him to get the fresh instructions from the Government on the controversy. I do not think it appropriate to adjourn the case further because of the pleadings of the parties.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perusing the record with their assistance, I am of the view that there is absolutely no distinction between the petitioners and the other members of police force created under the Act. It is evident that the real controversy involved in this petition of the petitioners was not, in fact contested by the respondents in their written comments as already detailed above. Even the learned Additional Advocate-General has sought time to get instructions on the dispute. In fact, the then learned Advocate-General wanted to make a statement before this Court on behalf of the respondents as is evident from his letter addressed by him to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, on 21-2-1993, to finally settle the dispute between the parties. The police officer, however, did not decide to respond one way or the other, despite the expiry of considerable time. It shall, therefore, be presumed that he had given his consent to make a statement before this Court conceding the plea of the petitioners in this behalf.
6. It may also be observed here that it is the Principal. Law Officer of the Province who has to give his opinion on the disputes, which involve questions of law. In my view, opinion of the learned Advocate-General should be followed by all concerned by giving it due weight. The said opinion would, therefore, hold the field in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Apart from the above, it has not been shown by the respondents in any manner whatsoever that the petitioners are a separate and different cadre of the police. Admittedly, both the wings of the police are the creation of the same law. The expression "Police" has been defined under section 1 of the Act to include all persons who shall be enrolled under the Act. Section 2 of the Act further says that the entire police establishment shall be deemed to be police force. Under section 4 the entire police force shall act under the control of Inspector-General of Police. Section 12 of the Act has given the powers to Inspector-General of Police to frame rules subject to the approval of the Provincial Government in respect of organization, classification and distribution of police force so that any particular service may be performed by it. According to rule 1.3 of the Rules, the police force is divided into various administrative establishments including Special Branch. Police Training College. Provincial Finger Print Bureau. Crimes Branch etc. This would obviously mean that the above establishments were created only to make the police force more effective and efficient so as to achieve the very object of their creation, namely, for the prevention and detection of crime.
7. Bifurcation of police force into different branches will not, therefore, be construed to mean that one section of police is superior to the other. They shall, remain one integrated force for the purpose of privileges and other allied benefits unless it is otherwise provided by the law on the subject. So far, no distinction could be shown to exist by the respondents between the petitioners and other sections of the police force. In this view of the matter, the status of the petitioners has rightly been admitted to be the same as that of the ordinary police force in an unambiguous term. In an identical situation, a very apt observation was made by the learned Supreme Court of India in Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and others (1989 M LD 2153). Para. 4 of the said judgment may usefully be referred here.
8. "Before we part with the appeal we would like to take notice of another aspect. In course of hearing of the appeal, to a query made by us, learned counsel for the appellant indicated the reason as to why the appellant was anxious to switch over the general cadre. He relied upon two or three communications, which are a part of the record where it has been indicated that there is no promotional opportunity available in the wireless organization. Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. We would, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organization within six months from today by appropriate amendments of Rules. In case the State of Bihar fails to comply with this direction, it should, within two months thereafter, give a fresh opportunity to personnel in the Police wireless organization to exercise option to revert to the general cadre and that benefit should be extended to everyone in the wireless organization."
9. I am in complete agreement with the above-noted view of the Supreme Court of India. There is, therefore, no difficulty in granting the relief asked for by the petitioners in this petition. The upshot of the above discussion is that the result of the impugned minutes dated 18-7-1987, Annexure `A', to the extent whereby the petitioners are made to suffer, is hereby set aside by declaring it without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The members of Special Police Force shall be given all the privileges and benefits which are now being given to the members of ordinary police under the law, treating them to be the members of one integrated police establishment for all intents and purposes. This would also include an opportunity for their transfer to District Police like other police officers and may also be entitled for their statutory training at Police College, Sehala to enable them to earn further promotions in terms of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder provided, of course, they are found fit and eligible for the new assignments in the police hierarchy. This petition, accordingly succeeds and is allowed with no order as to costs.