Jharkhand High Court
Grih Raksha Vahini Swam Sewak ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 1 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3334 of 2020
1. Grih Raksha Vahini Swam Sewak Sangh
2. Lala Ram
3. Upendra Kumar
4. Hari Bhushan Sharma
5. Jay Prakash Singh ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Home, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O.
Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.
2. The Inspector General of Home Guard, Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. and
P.S.- Doranda, District Ranchi.
3. The Commandant-cum-Director, Home Guard, Jharkhand Ranchi, P.O.
and P.S.- Doranda, District Ranchi
4. The District Commandant Officer, Ranchi, having its office at Harmu
Housing Colony, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.
5. The District Magistrate, Ranchi, Kutchery, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S.
Kotwali, District Ranchi.
6. The District Commandant Officer, Chatra, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District
Ranchi.
7. The District Magistrate, Chatra, P.O. and P.S. Chatra.
... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AAG-2
------
Order No.04 Dated 01st February, 2021
Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned AAG appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing
in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation
arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained
about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter
has been heard.
3. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction
to treat the post of Home Guard as Civil Post as the nature of duty performed
by Home Guards is equivalent to a Police Personnel. Further prayer is also
made for a direction to immediately and forthwith provide the consequential
benefit at par with the regular police personnel as per the direction
issued in Contempt Petition (C) No.699-700 of 2015 arising out of Civil
Appeal No.2782-2783 of 2015 and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Home Guard & Civil Defence
Department.
4. The petitioner no.1 is Grih Raksha Vahini Swam Sewak Sangh and the
petitioner nos.2 to 4 are the person who were working as a Home Guard.
The petitioner no.2 and the petitioner no.5 are working since 1989 and the
petitioner nos.3 and 4 are working since 2004.
5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners
submits that similar cause of action arisen in the State of Himachal Pradesh
and Association named Grih Raksha Home Guard Welfare Society and along
with others moved before the Hon'ble Court praying for regularization of
service. He further submits that the question involved in Civil Appeal
No.2579 of 2015 and analogus cases was the subject matter of the Home
Guard in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The said Civil Appeal was disposed
off as reported in (2015) 6 SCC 247, wherein paragraph no.39 which has been
held as under:-
'39. In view of the discussion made above, no relief can be granted
to the appellants either regularization of service or grant of regular
appointments hence no interference is called for against the
judgments passed by the Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Delhi
High Courts. However, taking into consideration the fact that
Home Guards are used during the emergency and for other
purposes and at the time of their duty they are empowered with the
power of police personnel, we are of the view that the State
Government should pay them the duty allowance at such rates,
total of which 30 days (a month) comes to minimum of the pay to
which the police personnel of State are entitled. It is expected that
the State Governments shall pass appropriate orders in terms of
aforesaid observation on an early preferably within three months."
6. The Contempt Petition arising out of the same judgment which was
numbered as Contempt Petition (C) No.699-700 of 2015. Pursuant thereto, the
litigation has been addressed by some of the Government of State.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
Hon'ble Patna High Court has interfered in the matter in C.W.J.C. No.11208
of 2013 and he also submits that Government of Bihar has already issued the
direction which is contained in Annexure-3 in the light of the Judgment of
the Hon'ble Patna High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also
submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order in
W.P.(S) No.2144 of 2017 wherein, the direction was issued. He also submits
that in spite of that, the State Government has not considered the matter and
sitting tight over the matter.
8. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the matter can be considered by the Competent Authority as no decision
has been taken as yet.
9. In view of the above facts and considering the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble Patna High Court & Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court and pursuant to the decision taken by the Government of Bihar
which is contained in Annexure-3, the writ petition is being disposed of
directing the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the respondent
nos.1 & 2 along with all the credentials on which the petitioners are relying
including the judgments as annexed in the writ petition within a period of two
weeks from today.
10. If such representation is filed before the respondent nos.1 & 2 within the
aforesaid period, the respondent nos.1 & 2 shall consider the case of the
petitioners in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
Hon'ble Patna High Court as well as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
as indicated (supra) within a period of 8 weeks' thereafter and will pass a
reasoned order.
11. It goes without saying, if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioners,
the benefit of the same shall be extended to the petitioners within 8 weeks
thereafter.
12. With the above observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Raja/-
