Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rampal Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 4 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 114 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAMPAL CHATURVEDI S/O SHRI SUKHRAM
CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOME GUARD SAINIK R/O WARD NO.9 KODRITOLA
BORAKACHH BAROCHH DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAHLAD CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME VALLABH
BHAWAN DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HOME GUARD M.P.
STATE HOME GUARD HEAD QUARTER GOVIND
BHAWAN COLONY SOUTH CIVIL LINES NEAR SAI
MANDIR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEPUTY INSEPCTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
SHAHDOL RANGE DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT COMMANDANT HOME GUARD
SHAHDOL DISTRICT SHAHDOL RANGE SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
following:
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2023.01.05 19:36:59 IST ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ to quash impugned
order Annexure P-2 wherein it is mentioned that petitioner shall attain age of
superannuation on completion of 60 years of age. Names of other persons are
also mentioned in this list.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the provisions
contained in the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Seyak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu)
Sanshodhan Adhyadesh, 2018 age of superannuation has been increased from
60 years to 62 years.
It is submitted that vide order dated 06.08.2018 passed in W.P.
No.12087/2018 (Harvilas Jatav Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) a
Coordinate Bench has considered this aspect and to take a call and decide
whether Voluntary Home Guard and Permanent Home Guards are treated to be
at par and has further directed that in case State Government decides that the
retirement age for the Home Guards would be 60 years then they will be at
liberty to immediately retire the petitioner from the post of Home Guard.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in Home
Guard Sainik Evam Parivar Kalyan Sangh & others Vs. State of M.P. &
Another, ILR (2012) M.P. 382 placing reliance on which it is submitted that
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' will be applicable and thus invoking the
principle of equality, it is submitted that since State Government Employees are
allowed to superannuate at the age of 62 years through amendment, petitioner to
be allowed to continue upto the age of 62 years.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate for the State, in his turn,
Signature Not Verified
SAN
submits that firstly provisions of Adhivarshiki-Ayu Sanshodhan are not
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
applicable to the petitioner but they are applicable only to those persons who
Date: 2023.01.05 19:36:59 IST
are governed by Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. Secondly, petitioner has no
vested right to continue upto the age of 62 years.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that in Home Guard Sainik Evam Parivar Kalyan
Sangh (supra) Coordinate Bench of this Court in para 22 has held that there is
not exact similarity in the method of recruitment of Home Guard and Police
Constables appointed in the regular establishment of Police Department and
even in the manner of discharging the duty and exercise of powers, thus,
principle of 'equal work for equal pay' can not be enforced in its totality.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak Home Guards Wel. Asso.
Vs. State of H.P. & Ors, and connected matters, passed in Civil Appeal
No.2759 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.12858 of 2009), in para 22
has held that "no relief can be granted to the appellants either regularization of
services 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 date
preferably within three months."
Thus, it is evident that except for payment of duty allowance, no
Signature Not Verified
SAN indulgence is shown by the Supreme Court in the matter of other service
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2023.01.05 19:36:59 IST conditions of the Home Guards. When tested on this touch stone then it is
evident that petitioner services being not governed by Fundamental Rules, 1956
and he being not an employee falling in a category to whom Fundamental Rules
are applicable, his insistence to claim enhancement of age on the basis of
amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Seyak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu)
Sanshodhan Adhyadesh, 2018 is misplaced and said relief cannot be granted to
him. Therefore, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Tabish
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2023.01.05 19:36:59 IST
