JUDGMENT H.K.K. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner while serving as Havildar at 1st Bn. Manipur Rifles was allowed to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 30.11.2001 (A/N) and his name was to be strucked off the strength from 1.12.2001 under order dated 21.11.2001 (Annexure-A/9). In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged this order dated 21.11.2001. 2. Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh has submitted various points of law relating to recruitment, retirement, pension, etc., applicable to the members of Manipur Police serving in the State of Manipur which includes Riflemen serving under various Battalions of Manipur Rifles. Mr. Jallal, learned Govt., Advocate also referred to various provisions of law in this regard. 3. Bereft of the details, facts necessary for the purpose of determination of the case are that the petitioner joined service as a Rifleman on 19.4.1969 and he got promotions to higher grades in due course. Ultimately, he was promoted to the rank of Havildar on 28.10.1998. While serving as Havildar in 1st Bn. Manipur Rifles at Imphal under order dated 17.9.2001, he was transferred to 15th Bn. Manipur Rifles at Tamenglong (which lies in a hill district). Thereafter, the petitioner under letter dated 22.9.2001 requested for allowing him to go on voluntary retirement on family problems with effect from 31.12.2001. Thereafter, on 24.11.2001, the petitioner made a representation requesting the Authority to revoke his transfer order so that he might remain posted at Imphal. Thereafter, on 21.11.2001 the impugned order of voluntary retirement (Annexure-A/9) was issued. The same is reproduced below for ready reference : "Government of Manipur Office of the Commandant: 1st Bn. Manipur Rifles, Imphal, Orders by the Commandant Imphal, the 21st November, 2001. No. VP/68/2001-1MR/: Under C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 as amended from time to time the application submitted by Shri K. Ibopishak Singh, Hav, No. 13182 of MT-Coy, 1st Bn. Manipur Rifles, Imphal regarding retirement is hereby accepted and he is allowed to retire from service on Voluntary Retirement with effect from 30.11.2001 (AN) and his name is struck off strength from 1.1.2001. Sd/- Commandant, 1st Bn. Manipur Rifles, Imphal." 4. Manipur Rifles, Imphal regarding retirement is hereby accepted and he is allowed to retire from service on Voluntary Retirement with effect from 30.11.2001 (AN) and his name is struck off strength from 1.1.2001. Sd/- Commandant, 1st Bn. Manipur Rifles, Imphal." 4. At the Bar, the learned counsel on both sides have submitted that though the Indian Police Act, 1861 has been in force since a long time back, only in the year 1974 under order dated 6.9.1974 (Annexure-A/1) Rules laid down in Assam Police Manual, Parts I to V were adopted as Rules by the State Government for the application to the Manipur Police Personnel. The aforesaid order dated 6.9.1974 (Annexure-A/1) is also reproduced below : "Manipur Gazette EXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY (NO. 134 Imphal, Saturday, 7th September, 1974 (Bhadra 16,1896) GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT : HOME DEPARTMENT ORDERS BY THE OVER NOR OF MANIPUR Imphal, the 6th September, 1974 No. 7/41/73-POL.I. - In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 read with Section 46 of the police Act, 1861 (V of 1861), the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that the rules laid down in the Assam Police Manual Parts I to V shall be deemed to be the rules framed by the State Government of Manipur for application in the Manipur Police Force, with such alterations and modifications, not affecting the substance, as may be necessary having regard to the existing Administrative set-up in the State. 2. Further, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that for the aforesaid purposed, the Manipur Rifles shall be deemed to be a part of the Manipur Police Force. 3. This order will take effect immediately. By order and in the name of the Governor, A. DWI JAMANI SINGH Under Secretary to the Government of Manipur." 5. The learned counsel on both sides, at the bar, have also submitted that certain other Rules of the Central Government employees including the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification and Control) Rules, 1965, are also followed and applied to the employees of the State Government of Manipur and as such, the authorities applied the provisions of this Rules in respect of the members of the police of the Government of Manipur. 6. 6. Most important points to be considered and decided is what is the proper law applicable in the present case in the matter of voluntary retirement of the members of police service in Manipur. 7. As noted above, under order dated 6.9.1974 (Annexure-A/1), the provisions laid down in Assam Police Manual Parts I to V were made applicable as the Rules were framed by the Government of Manipur. But the impugned order dated 21.11.2001 (Annexure-A/9) of voluntary retirement was passed under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. In this connection, we may refer to the recent judgment passed by this Court in C.P. No. 1083/95 in the case of Shri Sangamsel Maring v. The State of Manipur and Ors., in which it has been categorically held that the provisions contained in the Assam Police Manual Parts I to V which were in force on the date of order, i.e., 6.9.1974, came to be the Rules framed under the provisions of Sections 7 read with Section 46of the Indian Police Act for the State of Manipur. In the aforesaid decision, this Court applied the law decided in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari and Ors. v. Shakuntala Shukla and Ors. reported in which the Apex Court held that Rules framed under the provisions of Police Act cannot be superseded by any Rules framed by the Governor under article 309 of the Constitution on the principle of "occupied field "and" Generalia specialibus non derogant". Here, the observation made in the aforesaid decision in the case of Sangamsel Maring (supra) may be reproduced. "Sections 7 read with Section 46 of the Indian Police Act, 1861 confer powers upon the State Government to make Rules and the respective sections indicate the field on which the rules may be made. In the present case the above order of the Government dated 6.9.1974 indicates that the Governor of Manipur declares that those provisions in A.P, Manual shall be the rules framed by the State Government of Manipur. In the present case the above order of the Government dated 6.9.1974 indicates that the Governor of Manipur declares that those provisions in A.P, Manual shall be the rules framed by the State Government of Manipur. If an Act confers upon the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying out all or certain provisions of the Act, State Government can make independent rules in exercise of the rule making power as conferred by the Act, or the delegated authority may adopt any Rules framed by any other State with certain alteration or modification not affecting the substance considering the local situation. Here, it may be mentioned that legislation may be made by reference or by adoption. The above order of the Governor of Manipur indicates that provisions in the A.P. Manual shall be deemed to be the Rules framed by the State Government of Manipur." 8. As the aforesaid decision of this Court was made on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Prakash (supra), it is clear that the provisions of Assam Police Manual Parts I to V are applicable in the present case. I said so, as the same being the occupied field of the State Legislature as found in Entry 2 of List II Schedule 7 of the Constitution and as such, the Rules framed by the authorities mentioned in the Police Act as delegated by the parent Act, i.e., Sections 7read with Section 46 of the Indian Police Act and other Rules are applicable in the present case at hand. 9. Interestingly, members of the police force regulated by the Indian Police Act and the Rules of Assam Police Manual extended or adopted as noted above, have been applied in the matter of grant of tension, retirement, disciplinary proceedings, etc. Here, I only reiterate those provisions which are found in Assam Police Manual cannot be superseded by any other Rules or law but as noted above even the impugned order allowing the petitioner to retire voluntarily from service, the provision of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 have been quoted and it appears that Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is also applied for the purpose of grant of pension, etc. Rule 101 of the Part III of Assam Police Manual prescribed for grant of pension. The same is reproduced below : "101. Ordinary pensions. Rule 101 of the Part III of Assam Police Manual prescribed for grant of pension. The same is reproduced below : "101. Ordinary pensions. - The rules regarding the grant of superannuation retiring, invalid, compensation, wound and injury, compassionate and family pensions and gratuities will be found in the Assam tensions Manual." 10. Thus, this rule 101 of Part III of Assam Police Manual is the provision applicable in the present case regarding grant for pension. Again, in respect of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, we find that under Rule 2(h) of these Rules of 1972 it has been clearly mentioned that the said Rules of 1972 is not applicable in respect of the persons those terms and conditions of service are regulated by the provisions of the Constitution or any other law enforced at that time. Thus, the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is also not applicable in the present case. 11. At this juncture, Mr. T. Nandakumar 'Singh submitted that the impugned order also cannot stand even under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner in his letter dated 22.9.2001 elected to retire with effect from 31.12.2001 (which is 5 or 6 days beyond 3 months time). Though under Rule 48, period of notice is 3 months and as such, the authority concerned should not have retire the petitioner before expiry of the statutory period of 3 months. Now, Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh has submitted that in the case at hand, the letter dated 24.9.2001 of the petitioner electing to voluntarily retire was not actually a request for voluntary retirement but, it was submitted by the learned senior counsel, that the Paid letter had to be written under compelling circumstance. The learned counsel argued at length citing a number of decisions including the cases reported in (1991) 2 GLR 299 and 2002(3) SLR 358 and finally the learned counsel submitted that the letter dated 24.11.2001 (Annexure-A/8) though not properly worded may mean and be treated as a letter for withdrawal of Annexure-A/7. In this regard, Mr. Jallal, learned Govt. advocate submitted that Annexure-A/8 may not be treated as a withdrawal of his voluntary retirement. In this regard, Mr. Jallal, learned Govt. advocate submitted that Annexure-A/8 may not be treated as a withdrawal of his voluntary retirement. Without going into detail at paragraph 2 of the letter dated 24.11.2001 which is before expiry of 3 months period from the date of his letter dated 24.11.2001, the petitioner had prayed for revoking his transfer order and for allowing him to be posted at Imphal on humanitarian consideration. Thus, it is the clear intention to continue in service. 12. At any rate, even if the provision of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is not applicable in the present case, the impugned order cannot stand in law as the order of voluntary retirement was passed before expiry of 3 months period and definitely much before the date on which he elected to retire as indicated in his letter dated 22.9.2001 (Annexure-A/7). The impugned order should not have passed under paragraph (j) of Fundamental Rule 56. Again, the letter dated 22.9.2001 (Annexure-A/7) the petitioner should not have been accepted before expiry of 3 months period from the date of election, even under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 13. Again, the letter dated 22.9.2001 (Annexure-A/7) cannot be treated as a resignation under Section 9 of the Indian Police Act, 1861 read with Rule 106 of Assam Police Manual Part III as the letter at Annexure-A/7 is only for voluntary retirement. 14. Now, the question is what relief may be granted. The provisions contained in Assam Police Manual are to be applied but the same was not applied and the learned counsel at the Bar at one voice have submitted that at no point of time, the provisions contained in Assam Police Manual have been followed but the general law applicable for grant of pension to the Government servants of the State of Manipur have been applied to the members of the Manipur Police including Rifleman and others serving in various Battalions of Manipur, except in the case of those employees who are members of any statutorily organised service. This is an established and hard fact. In other words, the provision in the matter of grant for pension, retirement, disciplinary proceedings, etc., as contained in the Assam Police Manual have never been applied to the members of Manipur Police. 15. This is an established and hard fact. In other words, the provision in the matter of grant for pension, retirement, disciplinary proceedings, etc., as contained in the Assam Police Manual have never been applied to the members of Manipur Police. 15. At this juncture, a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and Anr. v. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd., and Ors. reported in : (1995) 3 SCC 434 may be apposite. The same is reproduced below : "Though in India the doctrine of desuetude does not appear to have been used so fair to hold that any statute has stood repealed because of this process, we find no objection in principle to apply this doctrine to our statutes as well. This is for the reason that a citizen should know whether, despite a statute having been in disuse for long duration and instead a contrary practice being in use, he is still required to act as per the "dead letter". We would think it would advance the cause of justice to accept the application of doctrine of desuetude in our country also. Our soil is ready to accept this principle ; indeed, there is need for its implantation, because persons residing in free India, who have assured fundamental rights including what has been stated in Article 21, must be protected from their being, say, prosecuted and punished for violation of a law which has become "dead letter". Anew path is, therefore, required to be laid and trodden." 16. Now, it is for the authority concerned to clarify the matter at the earliest so that an important section to the Government Servants who are rendering their valuable services for the State may have a clear law regulating their service conditions and for this case I have no doubt to come to the conclusion that the impugned order dated 21.11.2001 cannot stand in the eye of law and accordingly, the same is, thereby, quashed. The authority concerned shall pass necessary and consequential order for taking the petitioner back in service, if he is not otherwise disqualified, and for other service benefits, at the earliest. 17. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of, no costs. Writ petition allowed