Himachal Pradesh High Court
Neeta Ram vs State Of H.P. And Others on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 3622 of 2020
Decided on: 07.01.2021
__________________________________________________________________
.
Neeta Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ......Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
1 Whether approved for reporting?
______________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Addl. AG with
r Mr. J.S. Guleria, Dy. AG.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. (oral)
The writ petitioner became enrolled, as, a volunteer in
the Home Guards, on, 01.09.1993, and, thereafter, on 08.11.1996,
he was put in the reserved force. However, though he was, through
an application, hence made to the respondent concerned, and,
subject to his declared fitness, in all respects, hence entitled to re-
claim his re-enrollment or re-enlistment, as a Volunteer in Home
Guard. However, only in the year 2018, he motioned the learned
erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, through, his
instituting thereat OA, bearing No. 1624 of 2018, and, thereon, the
erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, directed that the afore original
application, be treated, as a representation to the respondent
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
concerned, and, also directed qua a decision being made thereon,
in accordance with relevant Rules. In pursuance thereof, as
becomes unfolded, by Annexure P-1, the authority concerned
.
declined the request, of, the writ petitioner, for his becoming re-
enrolled, as a Volunteer, in, the Home Guards, hence for the
reason(s), (a) inasmuch as, his claim being time barred, and,
secondarily, upon, despite his becoming enjoined to move an
apposite appeal, for the afore purpose, before the authority
concerned, his not endeavoring to move it.
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) thereupons, 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 petitioner, for,
his re-enrollment, as a Volunteer in the Home Guards.
3. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.
Also, the pending application(s), if any, are disposed of. No costs.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
Judge
7th January, 2021
(CS/virender)
