Khaidem Ingocha Singh vs State Of Manipur

[1] Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel appears for the petitioner and Mr. RK. Umakanta, learned Government Advocate appears for

the respondents.

[2] Prayer in the writ petition reads as follows :

“(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other appropriate writ / directions / orders, directing the respondents to consider

the service utilization / extension after retirement in respect of Home Guard Personnel, who is in the verge of retirement, in view of Hon’ble High

Court’s Observation vide its order dated 22.01.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 191 of 2018 read with 1.10. Home Guards â€" Enrolment Policy

incorporated under Compendium of Instructions, Home Guards â€" 1985, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present petition.

(iv) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other appropriate writ / directions / orders, directing the respondents to consider and

dispose of the Representation dated 02.01.2021 (AT ANNEXURE â€" A/4) submitted to the competent authorities by issuing reason and speaking

order, within a stipulated period of time, expeditiously, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present petition.â€​

[3] The petitioner claims to be a member of Home Guard stating that vide order No. 8/5/VA/80 Imphal the 11th May, 1981 issued by the

Commandant, Home Guards (VA), Imphal, Manipur wherein the petitioner was appointed as a member of Home Guard (VA) being HG No. 81110

and as per record, his date of birth is 01.03.1961. He is in the verge of retirement, on attaining the age of superannuation, which is normally 60 years

of age. He is performing his duty as a member of Home Guard dutifully, obediently and has dedicated his whole life to the service as Home Guard

with a meager amount as Honorarium. He refers to Compendium of Instructions, Home Guards â€" 1985 which provides for re-enrolment on

completion of their tenures (A/2) which reads as follows :

“1.10. HOME GUARDS ENROLMENT POLICY

Home Guards is a voluntary organisation and almost all ranks upto company level are volunteers. A small number of full time paid staff for training,

command and control is authorized at city/town, district and state levels. The Home Guards Acts/Rules of State Govts. stipulate varying lengths of

tenure for members of Home Guards. After completion of their tenures, they are eligible for re-enrolment. However, it is observed that in some states,

by retaining those members over long period, erosion in the voluntary character of the organization is taking place. It is suggested that as far as

possible, unemployed persons should not be retained as Home Guard over a long period so as to preserve the voluntary character of the

organization.â€​

[4] He further refers to the earlier order dated 22.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 191 of 2018. Para No. 7 of the order reads as follows

:

“7. That, it is again humbly submitted herein that the Hon’ble High Court of Manipur vide its order dated 22.01.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.

191 of 2018 wherein clearly observed under para. 30(a) that “that State of Manipur may consider increasing the strength of the Home Guard

Force, in proportion to the need as on date, besides giving them specialized training in rescue operations, driving work, managing the traffic and various

other programmes, on a par with police personnel. The State Govt. is to take steps to impart training for under-water rescue operation and after skill-

upgradation, the Home Guards should be placed at Fire Stations as part of the Auxiliary Force, as these teams would be the first responders in case of

accidents, natural calamities and other mishaps.â€​

[5] In the light of the above, the petitioner prays that he should be considered for re-employment after taking note of the representation dated

02.01.2021.

[6] Mr. RK. Umakanta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent states that the representation of the petitioner dated 02.01.2021

will be considered taking into consideration of the scope and ambit of the Compendium of Instructions, Home Guards â€" 1985 and its applicability in

so far as extension of service after retirement is concerned. The authority will consider the representation on its own merit.

[7] In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to take a decision on the representation on its own merit as

applicable to the case of Home Guard who is in the verge of retirement.

[8] It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner except to direct expeditious consideration

and disposal of the representation.

[9] Writ petition stands disposed of as above.