Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 23523 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
RAMESHWAR PRASAD TIWARI S/O LATE SHRI POORAN
LAL TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
NAGAR SAINIK AT HOME GUARD OFFICE SEONI DISTT-
SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR MISHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR THE
SECRETARY HOME DEPT. VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL HOME GUARD HEAD
QUARTER BHOPAL BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMANDED HOME GUARD
JABALPUR DIVISION JABALPUR MP JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE DISTRICT COMMANDED HOME GUARD
SEONI DISTRICT SEONI MP DISTT. SEONI M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the action of the State
Government in retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is Home Guard Sainik under Home
Guard Act, 1947 and since the State Government by 2018 amendment of
Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sansodhan Adhiniyam,
1967 has enhanced the age of superannuation of all government servants from
60 years to 62 years, the petitioner is also entitled to same treatment and he has
entitled to be superannuated on attaining the age of 62 years.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that it
has already been held by Division Bench of this Court that Home Guard Sainiks
are not holder of civil post and further that the 2018 amendment has
already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court and it has
been held by Division Bench of this Court that the Home Guard Sainiks are
not entitled for benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 62 years.
4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, it is
observed that the Division Bench of this Court in Punpratap Singh and
Another Vs. State of M.P reported in (2001) 2 JLJ 11 has held that
Home Guards are not holders of civil post under the State.
5. Further in case of Home Guards Sainik Evam parivar Kalyan
Sangh vs. State of M.P reported in (2012) 3 MPHT 387, this Court
has refused to declare the Home Guard as holders of civil post. Separate rules
have been framed by the State Government for Home Guards known as M.P
Home Guard Rules, 2016 and it is not the case of petitioners that the
said rules have been amended in any manner to enhance the age of
superannuation.
6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ahsan UL Haq in
W.A No.1604 of 2018 decided on 04.01.2019 has held as under:-
" The above writ appeal and the connected writ appeal arises out of the
order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence
they have been listed together for analogous hearing.
This order shall also govern the disposal of connected Writ Appeal
no.1798/2018. For the sake of convenience, facts are noticed from
the above case.
This is an intra-court appeal directed against the order dated
26.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he has disposed
of bunch of writ petition.
Petitioners were working as Home Guard and they challenge their date
of superannuation upon completion of 60 years of age. The claim of the
petitioners was that they were entitled to continue up to the age of 62
years in view of the M.P. Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan
Adhiniyam, 2018 which has enhanced the age of superannuation of
a government servant to 62 years. The claim was contested by
the respondents.
After hearing rival submissions, learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the
petition and accordingly they were dismissed. Hence this intracourt appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for appellants at length. Perused the
material available on record.
Respondents have placed on record M.P. Rajpatra (Asadharan) dated
27.1.2017. Perusal thereof shows that volunteers working as Home
Guard in Madhya Pradesh are governed by M.P. Home Guard Adhiniyam,
1947 and M.P. Home Guard Rules 2016. Rule 27, ibid was amended and
stipulates that a Home Guard can be engaged only up to the age of
60 years.
In view of the specific provision in the Rule, the Home Guard is not
entitled to continue up to the age of 62 years. Mere proposal sent by the
Director General to the State Government for enhancement of age
of superannuation does not give any right to the appellants or
persons similarly placed to continue to work as Home Guard up to the
age of 62 years. The provisions of M.P. Shaskiya Sevak
(Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2018 are inapplicable to
Home Guards.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the order impugned passed by
the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
There is no merit and substance in this writ appeal, same is accordingly,
dismissed."
7. In the aforesaid judgment as is clear, the Division Bench has refused to
allow benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 62 years to Home
Guard Sainiks by considering the 2018 amendments.
8. Further a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P No.11362 of
2023 decided on 12.06.2023 has relied on the aforesaid Division Bench has
dismissed identical petitions in the following terms:-
5 " This Court in the case of Jagdish Baghel (supra) has held as under:-
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
It is a well settled principle of law that the post of Nayak,
Homeguard is not a civil post. Volunteers working as Home Guard in
Madhya Pradesh are governed by M.P. Home Guard Adhiniyam, 1947
and M.P. Home Guard Rules 2016. Rule 27, was amended and
stipulates that a Home Guard can be engaged only up to the age of 60
years. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ahsan ul Haq Vs.
State of M.P. by order dated 4-1-2019 passed in W.A. No. 1604 of 2018
has held as under :
In view of the specific provision in the Rule, the Home Guard is not
entitled to continue up to the age of 62 years. Mere proposal
sent by the Director General to the State Government for
enhancement of age of superannuation does not give any right to
the appellants or persons similarly placed to continue to work as
Home Guard up to the age of 62 years. The provisions of M.P.
Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2018 are
inapplicable to Home Guards.
The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Punpratap Singh
and another Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2001 (2) JLJ
11 has found that the Home Guards are not the holders of civil
post under the State and held as under:-
4.With a view to understand the matter closely and clearly, it is
necessary to refer to the Preamble and the Statement of Objects
and Reasons to the Madhya Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1947
(hereafter 4 W.P. No.11362 of 2023 for short, Home Guards Act)
which read thus :
"Preamble.--Whereas it is expedient to create a body of volunteers
to supplement the Police Force and to assist in any general measure of
public welfare in Madhya Pradesh; it is hereby enacted as follows :--
Statement of Objects and Reasons.--
Experience has shown that in real emergencies the ordinary police
force is inadequate to deal effectively with the forces of disorder
without fuller assistance and cooperation from the members of the
public. The present unsettled conditions point to the vital necessity of
securing such cooperation and a condition precedent is the inculcation
of the habits of self- reliance and discipline and spirit of civic
service among the public. This Bill is designed to meet this purpose.
The 'Home Guards' will be a purely volunteer force and will supplement
the ordinary police, to be used in times of emergency for the purpose of
maintaining Law and Order, the protection of the person and property of
the citizen and public safety. To start with, the force will be raised in 14
places only, but it may be extended to other areas as necessity arises."
Therefore, it is abundantly clear from the Preamble and the
Statement of Objects and Reasons, quoted above, that Home Guards
is a body of volunteers to 5 W.P. No.11362 of 2023 supplement the
police force and to assist in any general measure of public welfare in
the State. The need to create this body was that ordinary police force
was inadequate to deal effectively with the forces of disorder in the
absence of co-operation from the members of the public in emergencies.
It is, in substance, purely a voluntary force to supplement the
ordinary police in times of emergency for maintaining law and
order, protection of person and property of citizens and public
safety.
In the case of Home Guard Sainik Evam Parivar Kalyan Sangh and others
Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2012(3) MPHT 387 this Court
has refused to declare the Home Guards as holders of the civil post orfor
granting them regular service along with the regular benefits availableto
personnel in the police department.
It is not the case of the petitioner, that the age of a Homeguard has been
enhanced by amending the M.P. Home Guard Rules, 2016.
Further, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay
SinghThakur and others Vs. State o f M.P. And Others by order dated
24-1-2020 passed in W.P. NO. 10567 of 2019 has also held that the
petitioners cannot claim entitlement to continue upto the age of 62
years on t he basis o f Madhya Pradesh Shashkiya Sevak (Adivarshiki
Ayu) Adhiniyam, 2018.
Accordingly, this petition sans merits, and is hereby Dismissed."
The present case is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in
the case of Jagdish Baghel (supra)."
9. In view of the above the legal issue involved in the present petition is
already settled by earlier judgements of this Court.
10. The present petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
Prar
