JUDGMENT D. Biswas, J. 1. This writ petition has a chequered history. It was disposed of by the judgment and Order dated 15.2.1989 with the direction to the Inspector General of Police, Border Security Force, North Eastern Region, Shillong to reinstate the Petitioner in service within three months and to pay his salary and allowances in accordance with law. 2. The Respondents filed Review Application No. 1 (SH)/1989 for review of the said judgment on various grounds. The said review application was dealt with and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 2.4.1997. The judgment and Order dated 15.2.1989 passed in Civil Rule was recalled and the Civil Rule No. 4(SH)/1987 was directed to be restored and listed before a learned Single Judge. Thus, the writ petition has been listed before this Court. 3. I have heard Ms. A. Paul, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned Central Government Standing Counsel. None appeared for the Respondents No. 1 and 2. 4. Shorn of details, we may clear the facts first. The Petitioner, since deceased, now represented by his widow Smti Maya Purkayastha, was serving in the 2nd Battalion, Border Security Force, Assam. In the year 1962, he was posted at Shillong and was officiating in the post of Havildar. He was placed under suspension with effect from 22.5.1962 by the order dated 23rd May, 1962 issued by the Commdant, 2nd Battalion, Border Security Force, Assam. The Suspension order was issued in view of his arrest in connection with G.R. Case No. 128(A)/1962 under Section 47A IPC. On conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate at Shillong acquitted him of the charges. The appeal No. 28/1974 preferred by the State of Assam was also dismissed by the High Court by the judgment and Order dated 26th November, 1979. No departmental proceedings was initiated against him during and even after dismissal of the criminal proceedings. In the meantime, 5 Bn of the Border Security Force, Assam was embodied into the Central Border Security Force with effect from January 1, 1967. The 2nd Battallion, Border Security Force, Assam was converted into 81st Battalion of Border Security Force. On such embodiment all the personnel with the assets and liabilities were also absorbed and taken over by the 81st Battalion of Border Security Force. The 2nd Battallion, Border Security Force, Assam was converted into 81st Battalion of Border Security Force. On such embodiment all the personnel with the assets and liabilities were also absorbed and taken over by the 81st Battalion of Border Security Force. The Respondent authority did not respond to the representations filed on various occasion by him for his reinstatement and release of salaries and other allowances. It was on this background, the Petitioner filed the writ petition (Civil Rule No. 4(SH)/1987). The Division Bench while disposing of the writ petition by the order dated 15.2.1989 observed that a person cannot be placed under suspension for such a long time--about 26 years and, on this ground, set aside the order of suspension with a direction to the Respondent No. 5 to reinstate the Petitioner in service. 5. The Petitioner also filed Civil Rule No. 16(SH)/1993 for implementation of the order passed by the Division Bench and initiated a proceeding for contempt being Contempt Petition No. 4 (SH)/1993 for non-implementation to the judgment. Simultaneously, the review application filed by the Respondent No. 5 was disposal of on 2.4.1997 directing that the Civil Rule be restored to file. 6. It appears from the affidavit filled by the Respondents that neither the Government of Assam nor the Union Government represented by 81st Battalion of BSF is willing to take the responsibility in the matter. The case of the Government of Assam as reflected in their affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Inspector General of Police, Assam is that the 2nd Battalion, BSF was under the Police Department of the Government of Assam before creation of the State of Meghalaya. The said Battalion was merged with Border Security Force (Central Government Organisation) prior to the shifting of the Police Headquarter at Guwahati, Assam. The records relating to the Petitioner's suspension and merged of his Unit with the Central Government were left at the Police Headquarter at Shillong. From this affidavit, it cannot be said that the writ Petitioner was not absorbed in 81st Battalion of BSF and continued to be a member of the State Police Force. 7. The Union of India and others in their affidavit dated 19th June, 1989 submitted that the writ Petitioner was serving in the 2nd Battalion, BSF, Assam and no document relating to the Petitioner is available with them. 7. The Union of India and others in their affidavit dated 19th June, 1989 submitted that the writ Petitioner was serving in the 2nd Battalion, BSF, Assam and no document relating to the Petitioner is available with them. It is further averred that at the time of embodiment, the Petitioner was not taken into Central Force as no record to that effect is available with them. It has been clearly stated in paras-9 and 10 of the affidavit that the Petitioner was not born on the strength of 81st Battalion of BSF. In the affidavit dated 26th August, 1997, the Union of India reiterated that the Petitioner was an employee of the State of Assam and was placed under suspension by the order dated 23.5.1962. He never became an employee under the Government of India as he was not available for the screening test for the purpose of absorption. The statements made in paras 5 (excerpts relevant) and 6 vindicating the stand of the Union are quoted below: 5. That, regarding the statement of para-5 of the writ petition, I humbly state that the Petitioner's statement that the 2nd Bn. BSF Assam has been converted into the present 81 Bn. BSF (Central) and all the personnel etc. were taken over by the Central BSF are not correct. The letter of MHA No. F5.7/66-BSI dated 28.5.66 clearly states in para (1) that "The Director General, Border Security Force will arrange for the screening of the members of the various State Armed Police Bus and those found fit will be absorbed in the Border Security Force." In para (II) it has been clearly been laid down that "These personnel who are not considered fit for absorption in the Central Border Security Force as a result of screening will be returned to the State as and when circumstances Permit. ... 6. That, from the above Bn Order's issued by the 2nd Bn BSF Assam it appears clear that from Jul. 63 the Petitioner was not staying in the unit lines of that Bn and as such the Petitioner was not available for screening and embodiment in the Central BSF in Oct. 1966. The letter of MHA No. 5/19/676-BS-I dated 04.11.66 states that the President approved the embodiment of State Police Bns. 63 the Petitioner was not staying in the unit lines of that Bn and as such the Petitioner was not available for screening and embodiment in the Central BSF in Oct. 1966. The letter of MHA No. 5/19/676-BS-I dated 04.11.66 states that the President approved the embodiment of State Police Bns. into the BSF and added that the principle laid down in the MHA letter dated 28.5.66 (Annex R-II to this counter affidavit) will govern the embodiment of these Bns. Therefore the principle of screening of the personnel of the State Police Bns and rejection as unfit has been maintained by this letter of MHA. But as the Petitioner was not available with his parent unit, the 2nd Bn BSF Assam, during embodiment, he could not be screened and as such he was not embodied in the BSF of the Union of India. As he was not embodied in the BSF (Central) so he was also not allotted regimental number which has been done to all who have been embodied in the BSF (Central). He got regimental No. 2024 which was allotted to him in 2nd Bn BSF Assam. A copy of the MHS letter dated 04.11.66 is annexed and marked R-II. 8. The pleadings quoted above clearly shows that the Petitioner was an employee of the 2nd Battalion of Border Security Force under control of the Police Department, Government of Assam. He was also placed under suspension in the year 1962 by the Government of Assam. There is no dispute with regard to his status as Havildar in the Police Force of Assam. The question is whether he was absorbed in the 81st Battalion of Border Security Force (Central Government organisation). The Petitioner could not produce any document to show that on embodiment, he was absorbed in 81st Battalion of Border Security Force (Central). The Union of India has in unambiguous term disowned him on the ground that he was not available for screening test and, as such, question of his absorption does not arise. The Government of Assam also could not produce any document to show that he was really absorbed in the 81st Battalion of the Border Security Force. 9. Ms. Paul, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon certain documents to buttress the contention that the Petitioner was absorbed as claimed. The Government of Assam also could not produce any document to show that he was really absorbed in the 81st Battalion of the Border Security Force. 9. Ms. Paul, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon certain documents to buttress the contention that the Petitioner was absorbed as claimed. These documents are annexed with the writ petition as well as the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner. Let us go through the document. Annexure-III to the writ petition is a communication from the Commandant of 81st Bn BSF (Central) to the Petitioner with reference to his letter dated 23.4.1974. For better appreciation, this letter is quoted below: 81 BATTALION BORDER SECURITY FORCE C/O 99 A.P.O. 15 Mar 74 No. ESTT/1172/74/2639-40 To Shri Biswapati Purkayastha C/0 Shri Makhan Chandra Das Shillong, Banking Corporation Jail Road, Shillong. Sub: Subsistance Allowance Ref.:Reference your letter No. Nil dated 23.2.74 2. You are no longer on the strength of this Unit and as such you are not entitled for any pay/allowances from BSF. It is further clarified that you were never embodied in the BSF. You are therefore advised to put your claim if any to the concerned Department where you were serving when you were suspended. Sd/ Illegible For Commandant 15 Mar 74 Copy to: H.Q. Deputy Inspector General, BSF, Assam & Meghalaya Shillong For information please. 10. The above letter is from the office of the Commandant of 81st Bn BSF (Central). It shows that the Petitioner was informed that he was never embodied in the BSF and, therefore, he should move the concerned Department i.e. Headquarter of Deputy Inspector General, BSF, Assam for redressal of his grievance with regard to his subsistence allowance. The letter dated 19th August, 1974 is a letter written by the writ Petitioner requesting for withdrawal of suspension order and permission to join the service. In reply, the Commandant of 81st Bn Border Security Force, Tura by the letter dated 30th August, 1974 (Annexure-V), advised the Petitioner to approach the concerned Department in connection with his case as intimated to him earlier by the letter dated 15.3.1974 (Annexure-III) Copy of this letter was also marked to the Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force, Assam & Meghalaya, Shillong. After a long gap, the Petitioner by the letter dated 30.1.1980 again requested the Commandant, 81st Bn. Border Security Force to withdraw the suspension order and to pay the wages. After a long gap, the Petitioner by the letter dated 30.1.1980 again requested the Commandant, 81st Bn. Border Security Force to withdraw the suspension order and to pay the wages. The Joint Assistant Director of the Head Quarters, DIG, BSF, Assam and Meghalaya by the letter dated 6th February, 1980 (Annexure-VII) informed the Petitioner to report to State Police for necessary action. A copy of this letter was also forwarded to the Commandant, 81st Bn BSF, Tura. This direction given by the Joint Assistant Director shows that the Petitioner's liability was with the State Government. Even the Chief Law Officer, Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs by the letter dated 17th August, 1983 (Annexure-IX) informed the Petitioner to approach the State Government for redressal of his grievance. Thereafter, the Petitioner appeared to have represented before the Inspector General of Police, Assam on 30th December, 1984. A close scrutiny of the letters would reveal that the Union Government on all occasions maintained that the Petitioner's husband was not available for screening test for the purpose of absorption and, that he should approach the Government of Assam. I have also taken due care of the letters annexed with the additional affidavit. The letter dated 4th May, 1972 was in response to a notice issued by the Petitioner under Section 81 Code of Civil Procedure. It shows that the Petitioner was stated to be a member of the Unit and his ration and subsistence allowances were stopped as he was living outside the Unit during the suspension period. This letter further indicates that his subsistence allowance was stopped from July, 1963 i.e. long before the embodiment of 2nd BSF, Assam with the 81st Bn BSF (Central). The other letter dated 15th December, 1972 written to the Petitioner by the Commandant of 81st Bn BSF (Central) also indicates that from July, 1963 the subsistence allowance and ration money were withheld for his absence from the Unit. Therefore, it cannot be said that a person under suspension was admitted to the Unit of 81st Bn BSF (Central). The statement that he was a member of the Unit in a single letter alone cannot be decisive in the matter as against the consistent plea of the Union that he was not absorbed at any point of time. 11. Therefore, it cannot be said that a person under suspension was admitted to the Unit of 81st Bn BSF (Central). The statement that he was a member of the Unit in a single letter alone cannot be decisive in the matter as against the consistent plea of the Union that he was not absorbed at any point of time. 11. A careful consideration of all the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as the additional affidavit vis-a-vis consistent stand of the Union as well as the fact that the Petitioner was under suspension and was not available for screening test due to his absence from the Unit lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Petitioner was not observed in the 81st Bn BSF (Central), as claimed. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the Petitioner's husband continued to be an employee of the Government of Assam in the Police Department. This decision is irresistible as the Petitioner, now represented by his widow, has failed to prove through materials on record that he was absorbed in the service of the Central Government as a member of the 81st Bn BSF (Central) by an order passed by the competent authority or under any scheme permitting banned wagon absorption of all sundry. 12. For reasons given above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to examine the matter, pass appropriate orders reinstating the husband of the Petitioner for the purpose of financial benefits and to compute the pay and allowances as may be payable including pension and family pension as per rules and, thereafter, to make payment of the amount as may be found due after such calculation. The exercise in this behalf has to be completed within a period of three months from the day when a copy of this judgment is furnished to the Director General of Police, Assam.