Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Singh Sengar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7827
1 WP-5929-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 4 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5929 of 2025
SANTOSH SINGH SENGAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri G.K.Agrawal - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) That issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
respondents to permit petitioner to discharge his duties till
attaining age of 62 years with all consequential benefit.
(ii) To grant any relief deemed just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case"
2. It is fairly conceded by counsel for petitioner that the case, in hand,
is covered by judgment passed by this Court in the case of Naresh Kumar
Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. decided on 10.07.2020 in
W.P.No.7728/2020 (Gwalior Bench) .
3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.
4. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Sharma (supra) has held as
under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7827
2 WP-5929-2025
"This petition has been filed seeking the following relief
(s):
"(I) That, the impugned order dated 18.3.2020
(Annexure P/1) may kindly be set aside or quashed
and further the present petitioner may kindly be
permitted to continue their services upto the age of 62
years in the interest of justice.
(II) That, cost of the petition may kindly be awarded
to the petitioner.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case same may
kindly be granted to the petitioner."
It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the
Petitioner is working on the post of Havaldar,
Homeguards, and by the impugned order (Annexure P/1) it
has been communicated to the petitioner that he shall retire
on attaining the age of 60 years. It is further submitted that
the State Govt. had enhanced the age of the State Govt.
employees from 60 to 62 years, and therefore, the
petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the said
notification and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to
continue till he attains the age of 62 years.
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, ibid 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7827
3 WP-5929-2025
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 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7827
4 WP-5929-2025
2012 (3) MPHT 387 this Court has refused to declare the
Home Guards as holders of the civil post or for granting
them regular service along with the regular benefits
available to 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 Singh Thakur and others Vs. State of 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
the basis of Madhya Pradesh Shashkiya Sevak (Adivarshiki
Ayu) Adhiniyam, 2018.
Accordingly, this petition sans merits, and is hereby
Dismissed."
5. Accordingly, this petition is also dismissed in the terms and
conditions of order passed in the case of Naresh Kumar Sharma (supra) .
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AK/-
