Rajinder Singh & Another vs State Of H.P. & Others

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioners Rajinder Singh and Ram Chander were enrolled for three years as members of Home Guards in 4th Battalion, Nahan, H.P. on

26.12.1991 and 18.10.1991 respectively. Petitioner No.1-Rajinder Singh was put in reserved force on 13.02.2001 as he did not undergo Refresher

Course in the year 1997-98 and also did not attend the routine duty. Petitioner No.2-Ram Chander did not attend routine and emergency duty etc. and

he did not submit any application for his renewal after completion of his three years of enrollment and, therefore, he was also put into reserved force

on 02.06.1995.

After putting them in reserved force, petitioners did not approach any authority or Court except filing present petition as an Original Application, in

the year 2017, before erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. There is an inordinate delay in approaching the Court, therefore, though, their

petition may have been dismissed on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay in filing the petition, however, learned counsel for the petitioners, has

placed on record a judgment dated 05.01.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this High Court in CWP No.3628 of 2020, titled as Inder Singh vs. State

of H.P. and others, arising out of identical petition bearing O.A. No.374 of 2018 wherein petitioner therein was enrolled as a Home Guard on

15.01.1997 and thereafter was put in reserved force on 15.02.2001 and he had approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in the

year 2017 i.e. after lapse of 17 years. In that case the Division Bench has directed the concerned authority to consider the petitioner therein for his

enrollment as a volunteer in Home Guards subject to certain conditions enumerated in the judgment on the basis of norms and rules dealing with the

issue.

For the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench, learned counsel for the petitioners, has prayed for issuing similar directions for petitioners

herein on the ground of parity, being similarly situated to the petitioner in CWP No.3628 of 2020.

Operative part of the judgment in CWP No.3628 of 2020 is as under:-

 “2. Be that as it may, the effects of all the afore may, become undone, rather only for ensuring that since, the writ petitioner, is otherwise, not,

declared, in the reply, on affidavit, sworn by the respondent, to be unfit, for performing the apposite duties, nor, is declared therein, to, during the

tenure, of, his service as a volunteer in the Home Guards, qua his not performing his duties, with lack of efficiency, and, or his mis-conducting, himself,

(i) thereupon, besides when the perusal, of , Annexure P-2, discloses that the persons aspiring to be re-enlisted as volunteer(s) in the Home Guards,

are not, to cross the prescribed therein age bar of 50 years, (ii) thereupon, when it is stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the

writ petitioner has not crossed the apposite age bar, hence, the respondents concerned, are, directed to, subject, to his also meteing compliance with

Rule 3, of Annexure P-2, inasmuch as, his being (a) not less than 18 years and not more than 50 years of age, (b) is of good moral character; (c) is

physically fit to undergo arduous out-door duties and has been medically examined and found to be of normal health; (d) is at least literate in Hindi; (e)

is not wholly engaged in any course of study in any educational institution and has an employment or profession; (f) is not a member of the Territorial

Army; (g) takes an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India and to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as laid down in the form of pledge

appended to these rules, hence proceed to consider the request of the respondent, for, his re-enrollment, as a volunteer in the Home Guards.

In view of the afore, the writ petition is disposed of. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.â€​

Being similarly situated person, petitioners are also entitled for the same treatment as has been extended to the petitioner in CWP No.3628 of 2020.

Therefore, in case judgment in the said petition has been accepted and implemented by the respondents then, the same treatment shall also be

extended to the petitioners in the same terms. Directions issued in CWP No.3628 of 2020 shall be mutatis mutandis applicable in the present case for

all intent and purposes.

Present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.