Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramlal Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
WRIT PETITION No. 3022 of 2020
AMREESH PATHAK AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 8996 of 2016
RAMMURTI SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9423 of 2016
NEELESH SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10638 of 2016
MADAN GIRI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12969 of 2016
SMT. SAROJ PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13943 of 2016
RAMDAS AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14973 of 2016
JAGDISH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4850 of 2017
BHARAT KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8686 of 2018
INDRA KUMAR PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9551 of 2018
AMIT KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 28769 of 2018
JAGANNATH GAUTAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 21 of 2019
MUBARIK KHAN (ALI) AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT APPEAL No. 1106 of 2019
TEJ BHAN SHUKLA AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1265 of 2019
CHANDRA KUMAR TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 11612 of 2019
DEVENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2439 of 2020
SANTOSH KUSHWAH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2561 of 2020
SHYAM KISHORE MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2627 of 2020
BIRAM SINGH MALVIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2885 of 2020
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
RAMSINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2919 of 2020
IQLAKH KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2983 of 2020
SITARAM VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3075 of 2020
SAROJ PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3301 of 2020
NANDLAL CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3885 of 2020
PURUSHOTTAM KUSHWAHA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4230 of 2020
SUMER SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 4266 of 2020
MRIGENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4481 of 2020
JONDRU LAL RAHANGDALE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4632 of 2020
NANDRAM SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4657 of 2020
RAJ BAHADUR SHASTRI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4764 of 2020
PREM BHARTI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4815 of 2020
BHIKHUA KOL AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4906 of 2020
SIYARAM YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4965 of 2020
SHIV PRATAP SINGH SENGAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5020 of 2020
BHAGAT SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5031 of 2020
RAMKRISHNA RAJAK AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5047 of 2020
MANOJ AWASTHY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5112 of 2020
RAHUL YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5114 of 2020
RAKESH BAGRI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 5233 of 2020
RAMLAKHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5367 of 2020
SUMAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5398 of 2020
TEJKARAN SINGH CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5479 of 2020
RAM GOPAL RATHORE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5740 of 2020
IMTIYAZ AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5887 of 2020
GANGARAM KAURAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5952 of 2020
SHYAM KUMAR BAIRAGI AND OTHERS
Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5973 of 2020
PRAMOD KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6016 of 2020
DHARMENDRA SINGH BAGHEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6074 of 2020
SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6825 of 2020
MANIRAM KAUSHAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6829 of 2020
BHAGENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8482 of 2020
TOFAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT APPEAL No. 703 of 2021
RAMANUJ CHATURVEDI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13214 of 2021
HARI SHANKAR NAGAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 217 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAM SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 239 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SIYARAM YADAV AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 240 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
IMTIYAZ AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 244 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMLAKHAN AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 264 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
NANDLAL CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT APPEAL No. 265 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PREMBHARTI AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 266 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
NANDRAM SAHU AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 291 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
JONDRU LAL RAHANGDALE AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 323 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PURUSHOTTAM KUSHWAHA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 333 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MRIGENDRA SINIGH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 338 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHYAM KISHORE MISHRA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 348 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
RAM GOPAL RATHORE AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 349 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BIRAM SINGH MALVIYA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 353 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
CHANDRA SHEKHAR PATEL AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 354 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SUMER SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 362 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
GANGARAM KAURAV AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 363 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SATYENDRA KUMAR VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 402 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHYAM KUMAR BAIRAGI AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 403 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
SUMAN SINGH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 406 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BHIKHUA KOL AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 421 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAKESH BAGRI AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 450 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PRAMOD KUMAR AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 451 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MANOJ AWASTHY AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3348 of 2022
CHANDRA SHEKHAR PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3351 of 2022
SATYENDRA KUMAR VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4575 of 2022
ASHU MESHRAM AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4842 of 2022
MANISH GOYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5001 of 2022
VIRENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5030 of 2022
NEERAJ YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5076 of 2022
KRISHNA KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5175 of 2022
VISHNU CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5464 of 2022
DAYASHANKAR DWIVEDI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5607 of 2022
BHAGWAT SINGH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5651 of 2022
VISHNU PRASAD AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5652 of 2022
CHANDRA SHEKHAR PATHORIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5657 of 2022
PUSHPRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5778 of 2022
CHANDRA SHEKHAR LODHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5780 of 2022
KALICHARAN BAGHEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5781 of 2022
LAL BAHADUR SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5782 of 2022
GYAN SINGH RAWAT AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5783 of 2022
SHIV PRASAD PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5786 of 2022
ANURAJ CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5838 of 2022
AJAY BAGHEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5857 of 2022
LOKENDRA SINGH SONGARA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5927 of 2022
RUP SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6048 of 2022
RANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6122 of 2022
VIJAY AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6240 of 2022
PAWAN KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6302 of 2022
BHAGWAN SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6387 of 2022
JITEDNRA SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6389 of 2022
KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6419 of 2022
SHUBHAM SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6425 of 2022
PRAFFUL YOGI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6427 of 2022
HARIRAM VISHWAKARA AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6620 of 2022
RAMESH PRASAD SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6832 of 2022
SUSHIL KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6901 of 2022
JASRAM SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6956 of 2022
AJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7188 of 2022
SUDHESH KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7242 of 2022
RAM LAKHAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7249 of 2022
SANTOSH KUMAR AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7251 of 2022
ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7252 of 2022
JITENDRA KHARE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7272 of 2022
SANJAY SINGH DANGI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7436 of 2022
HARIDAS DHANRAI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7438 of 2022
RAMBILAS SARATHE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7577 of 2022
BALWAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7685 of 2022
KRISHNA KANT SHUKLA AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7686 of 2022
VERSINGH GADARIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7803 of 2022
RAM PRASAD DWIVEDI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7872 of 2022
KUNJ BIHARI SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7939 of 2022
SUBHASH KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8166 of 2022
VINOD JOSHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8199 of 2022
JAGMOHAN PRASAD MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8312 of 2022
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8315 of 2022
PEERU LAL PARMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8554 of 2022
RAM BHAROSQA AHIRWAR AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8932 of 2022
VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9416 of 2022
LALITA PRASAD SAKET AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9441 of 2022
SUNDAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9454 of 2022
BHAGIRATH SINGH CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9649 of 2022
KAMLESHWAR PRASAD DWIVEDI AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9737 of 2022
RAMLAL SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9864 of 2022
BHAGWAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10106 of 2022
MAHANAND PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10176 of 2022
PRATAP SINGH UIKEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10184 of 2022
RAMKRIPAL KUSHRAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No.10546 of 2022
SUBHAM SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 11724 of 2022
SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
WRIT PETITION No. 12640 of 2022
NILESH SALVI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13108 of 2022
RAM KRIPAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
WRIT PETITION No. 13412 of 2022
PAWAN NINAMA AND OTHERS
Versus
HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13713 of 2022
SHANTI LAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13904 of 2022
PARASRAM TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14124 of 2022
AKASH CHOUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18001 of 2022
RAJENDRA KUMAR RANGOTHA AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18093 of 2022
NARENDRA HAROD AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18382 of 2022
LAXMIDEEN PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 19382 of 2022
YASHWANT YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 23861 of 2022
VINOD KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 24194 of 2022
BABULAL CHOUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 24775 of 2022
TARUNENDRA KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 24778 of 2022
MUKESH SISODIYA AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 25263 of 2022
RAMPRASAD AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 26054 of 2022
KAMAL KAITHWAS AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 26374 of 2022
INDER SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 26397 of 2022
SNEHRAJ DIXIT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 26679 of 2022
SANT RAM CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 26773 of 2022
SUJEET SEN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 26819 of 2022
RAMDAYAL DEHARIYA AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27486 of 2022
NEELESH SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27517 of 2022
SHYAMLAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27658 of 2022
OMSHANKAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27684 of 2022
RAMKISHORI DUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27850 of 2022
GHANSHYAM PATHAK AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 28707 of 2022
RAM KISHOR SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 28735 of 2022
KISHAN LAL KUSHWAHA AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 28749 of 2022
SHYAMDAS SONWANI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 29036 of 2022
SANTOSH MEHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 29048 of 2022
THOBAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 29280 of 2022
SANTOSH GIRI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7 of 2023
SHOBIT SAXENA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 270 of 2023
JAIHIND SINGH MARAVI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 693 of 2023
NARENDRA KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1369 of 2023
RAJENDRA RAIKWAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1537 of 2023
PAWAN KUMAR SONWANI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1796 of 2023
SAROJ PILLAI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1804 of 2023
KUMER SINGH TAKWANA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2012 of 2023
RAMAYAN PRASAD KOL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2019 of 2023
CHETRAM MALVIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2359 of 2023
JAGDISH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2505 of 2023
PRABHU DAYAL SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2506 of 2023
RAJENDRA PRASAD MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2516 of 2023
KALURAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2560 of 2023
SANTOSH TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2574 of 2023
WAHEED KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2693 of 2023
TUKARAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3049 of 2023
BHUPENDRA KUMAR PATHAK AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 3287 of 2023
ASHOK KUMAR JANGHELA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3347 of 2023
RAGHUNATH SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHAYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3438 of 2023
KALICHARAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3867 of 2023
ASHWIN SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3920 of 2023
SAMRATHMAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4066 of 2023
BHAIRO SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4122 of 2023
KAILASH PRASAD KOL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 4701 of 2023
NANDLAL JHARIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4912 of 2023
MUKESH HANAUTIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4944 of 2023
NARAYAN PRASAD JHARIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4955 of 2023
RAM PRASAD SOUR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5291 of 2023
NAGENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5572 of 2023
RAJESH CHOUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5634 of 2023
HAKIM SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5664 of 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
GOPAL SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5682 of 2023
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5685 of 2023
BADRILAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5686 of 2023
SURYAKANT TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5704 of 2023
GYAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5835 of 2023
NAJEER MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5929 of 2023
VINOD YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5945 of 2023
SHALIGRAM PATEL AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6312 of 2023
BATULAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6615 of 2023
NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE O F MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6902 of 2023
CHANDA BAI GOND AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6904 of 2023
MS. SHIVANI RAJAK AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6906 of 2023
PAWAN SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7064 of 2023
UMESH KUMAR SHUKLA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7201 of 2023
PREMLAL JHARIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7210 of 2023
BHAIYARAM GOUND AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7356 of 2023
SHEETAL PRASAD AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7358 of 2023
BHAIRO SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7371 of 2023
SYAMKANT SHUKLA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8452 of 2023
RAVI SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8853 of 2023
RAJNI TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9178 of 2023
KAMAL SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9283 of 2023
SHEKH JAHUR KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9431 of 2023
PARMANAND UIKEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9949 of 2023
BABULAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10411 of 2023
VIJAY DEWALIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10412 of 2023
JAGDEV AHIRWAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10855 of 2023
NAARAD SINGH DHURVE AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10953 of 2023
DANSHAHA SINGH INVATI AND OTHERS
Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12034 of 2023
MAMTA TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12636 of 2023
PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12729 of 2023
MAHESH PRASAD SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13389 of 2023
MUKESH KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13399 of 2023
MAHESH BAIRAGI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13869 of 2023
KRISHAN KUMAR YOGI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14530 of 2023
MUNNALAL PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 14723 of 2023
TULSIRAM VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 15029 of 2023
RAKESH KUMAR PARSTE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 15449 of 2023
KAILASH CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16178 of 2023
JWALA PRASAD VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16876 of 2023
BHAGWAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18259 of 2023
LACHHU SINGH GOND AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18402 of 2023
ANAND SURYAVANSHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 18411 of 2023
SMT. SHIREE FARHAT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 19456 of 2023
GURUDATT NAMDEO AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20582 of 2023
JAI SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20739 of 2023
RAJESH VERMA (JAAT) AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 22422 of 2023
SHUMER SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 23031 of 2023
TULSIRAM TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 23443 of 2023
GIRJA TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 23500 of 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
MANI KANT SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 24532 of 2023
VEERENDRA KUMAR PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 24888 of 2023
DHOLIRAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 25057 of 2023
KAMAL SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 25451 of 2023
RAMKISHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27068 of 2023
KANTI LAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27448 of 2023
HEMENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27789 of 2023
DEVENDRA KUMAR
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 28462 of 2023
SHIVCHARAN RAJAK AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 28881 of 2023
KUNWAR SIGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 29019 of 2023
BHURELAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 29089 of 2023
MAJBOOT SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 29341 of 2023
AJAY PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 29551 of 2023
ARVIND SINGH RAJPUT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 29797 of 2023
RAJJAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 29844 of 2023
SANDHYA AHIRWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 30047 of 2023
MUNNI LAL RAJAK AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 30187 of 2023
AVDESH TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 30515 of 2023
MUKESH PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 30847 of 2023
SUNDERLAL KURVETI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 30906 of 2023
GOPAL DAS VAISHNAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 31004 of 2023
HARSH VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 31022 of 2023
ANITA SEN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 31080 of 2023
SUDAMA PRASAD PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 31085 of 2023
SUBHASH RAV SHINDE AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 31095 of 2023
RAKESH YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 31185 of 2023
MUKESH KUMAR SHAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 31206 of 2023
RAJKUMAR SONWANI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 31378 of 2023
HARI BAI AHIRWAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 31416 of 2023
KRIPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 31631 of 2023
ANANDI LAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 31765 of 2023
SARMANLAL AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 31774 of 2023
MAHESH KUMAR UPADHYAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 32109 of 2023
BALWAN SINGH MARAVI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 32127 of 2023
MANMOHAN SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 99 of 2024
AKASH CHOUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 119 of 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
KUNWAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 191 of 2024
ANJA BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 301 of 2024
SHUSHIL SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 495 of 2024
AJMER SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 544 of 2024
INDER SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 583 of 2024
AKHILESH KUMAR GURU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 615 of 2024
NARMADA PRASAD PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 725 of 2024
SUNNY PARMAR AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 759 of 2024
GULAB PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 795 of 2024
YAJVENDRA SINGH CHAWHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 944 of 2024
PREMNARAYAN CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1175 of 2024
RAO JI KADVE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1205 of 2024
VEERAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1229 of 2024
SHEIKH NAZIM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1420 of 2024
GOPAL PRASAD JANGHELA AND OTHERS
Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1422 of 2024
HARISH KUMAR SINGROURE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1435 of 2024
RAJKUMAR SIROHIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1569 of 2024
GOPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1698 of 2024
SUSHIL KUMAR JHARIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1703 of 2024
GAJENDRA SINGH CHOURE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1752 of 2024
RAJESH PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1949 of 2024
GAJRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 1951 of 2024
SURESH KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2249 of 2024
AJAY KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2359 of 2024
ARJUN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2362 of 2024
TEJRAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2780 of 2024
ANIL KOLI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2826 of 2024
MANGILAL CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2970 of 2024
KARULAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 3143 of 2024
YOGESH YOGI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3246 of 2024
VISHAL JOSHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3485 of 2024
RADHESHYAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3631 of 2024
GHASIRAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3742 of 2024
BALBAHADUR SINGH VERMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3965 of 2024
BABULAL YUVNATI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4003 of 2024
KHUSHILAL SONI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4092 of 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
PRIYANKA MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4169 of 2024
SACHIN VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4314 of 2024
SALAKRAM BARASKAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4383 of 2024
SHRIRAM VERMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4445 of 2024
ARJUN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4507 of 2024
MEHARBAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4719 of 2024
RAMDAS PAWAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4896 of 2024
SANJAY MISHRA
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4927 of 2024
DEVENDRA SINGH JANGHELA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5116 of 2024
NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5244 of 2024
MUKESH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5276 of 2024
RAMESH NAMDEV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5914 of 2024
VASUDEV PRASAD BADGAIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6261 of 2024
BRAHMANAND JANGHELA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6340 of 2024
SHRIPAL SINGH GUNHARE
Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6520 of 2024
OMDATT TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6598 of 2024
BANSHI LAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6679 of 2024
ANITA SINGH THAKUR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6734 of 2024
CHANDRAKANT JHARIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6951 of 2024
BHARAT SHUKLA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6959 of 2024
GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7177 of 2024
PREMNARAYAN DUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 7249 of 2024
DHANRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7334 of 2024
RAMAKANT TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7340 of 2024
SHRI LAL DHURVE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7419 of 2024
PARASRAM YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7998 of 2024
MUKESH RAIKWAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8322 of 2024
RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8853 of 2024
JITENDRA SINGH RAJPOOT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 9349 of 2024
VINOD MASATAKAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9489 of 2024
LAL BAHADUR SINGH PARMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9691 of 2024
HARISHANKAR SEN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9734 of 2024
ANOOP SINGH PARIHAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10132 of 2024
BHAN SINGH SAROTE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10275 of 2024
RATU SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10524 of 2024
SALIK RAM JANGHELA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 11057 of 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 11088 of 2024
PHOOLCHAND JAISWAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 11253 of 2024
MAAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12074 of 2024
DINESH MASATKAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12111 of 2024
REMU SINGH BHABAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13031 of 2024
SHANTILAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13148 of 2024
RAMNATH KORI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13185 of 2024
OM PRAKASH KHEDE AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13413 of 2024
RAGHUNATH EKLE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14167 of 2024
DEVENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14241 of 2024
MANOJ KUMAR NAKIB AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14917 of 2024
PARKASH SONRISH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 15499 of 2024
KUVAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16152 of 2024
OMSHANKAR SURYAWANSHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16320 of 2024
YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16440 of 2024
DILIP AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16469 of 2024
HANUMAT SINGH THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16488 of 2024
LAKHAN TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16740 of 2024
MULAI SINGH UDDE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16968 of 2024
MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 17170 of 2024
GYANI LAL SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 17859 of 2024
RAMESH SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 18239 of 2024
RAMLAKHAN SINGH SOLANKI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18473 of 2024
MANOJ BRAHME AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18504 of 2024
MANOHAR LAL SITARIA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18723 of 2024
PANNALAL MEDA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 19038 of 2024
RAMSWARUP SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 19517 of 2024
SHIVNARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20518 of 2024
LALIT KMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 20804 of 2024
ISAHAAK KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 21207 of 2024
GIRJA PRASAD AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 21301 of 2024
DEVENDRA KUMAR BHAVEDI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 21324 of 2024
DINESH TAMRAKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 21483 of 2024
MANOHAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 21494 of 2024
MADHAV TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 21805 of 2024
MOHD. YUSUF KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 22383 of 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
RAGUNATH YADUWANSI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 22812 of 2024
BUDHAN SINGH DHURVE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 23586 of 2024
MAHENDRA KUMAR AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 23961 of 2024
KALAYAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 24225 of 2024
ASHOK SONI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 24458 of 2024
PRAKASH SURYAWANSHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 24524 of 2024
ARUN TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 24882 of 2024
RAMESH CHANDRA PARIHAR AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 25007 of 2024
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 25088 of 2024
MANOJ KUMAR VARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 25790 of 2024
DHANUSH KUMAR ARYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 26195 of 2024
PRABHUNATH MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 26988 of 2024
DWARKA PRASAD YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27185 of 2024
SANTOSH KUDOPA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27670 of 2024
LALIT MOHAN YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 27809 of 2024
RAJESH MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 28008 of 2024
RAJKUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 28519 of 2024
GHISILAL KUSHWAHA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 28764 of 2024
VIJAY SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 29011 of 2024
ANKIT DUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 30013 of 2024
RAMCHANDRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 31107 of 2024
RAJESH KUMAR SAROTE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 31134 of 2024
SANDEEP SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 31222 of 2024
MUNNI LAL AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 31514 of 2024
HAZARI LAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 32152 of 2024
MAROTI PAWAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 32347 of 2024
REWA SHANKAR GOUR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 33010 of 2024
SHANKAR SHINGH THAKUR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 33567 of 2024
PANKAJ MANDLOI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 34250 of 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
DEEPAK KUMAR DUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 34317 of 2024
PRATAP SINGH UIKEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 34986 of 2024
KAILASH VERMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 35215 of 2024
BRAJESH KUMAR DUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 35853 of 2024
TULSI DAS AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 35936 of 2024
DINESH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 36480 of 2024
PREHLAD SINGH THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 36964 of 2024
DEEPAK UIKEY AND OTHERS
Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 37171 of 2024
INDRA SEN YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 37901 of 2024
SUSHIL SONI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 38029 of 2024
FIKIR CHAND AHKE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 38393 of 2024
MANGILAL THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 38828 of 2024
KUNJ BIHARI TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 38833 of 2024
GANGARAM UIKEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 38956 of 2024
LAIIU PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 38991 of 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
MOHIT KUMAR SURYAVANSHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 39310 of 2024
BIHARI SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 39326 of 2024
SATENDRA TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 39608 of 2024
KAUSHAL TOMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 39859 of 2024
SURENDRA KUMAR SONI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 40796 of 2024
DEEPAK KARVADIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 41123 of 2024
POORAN GOUND AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 42020 of 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
SAHESHLAL SAREYAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6 of 2025
JAGRAJ SINGH PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 419 of 2025
SOURABH TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1317 of 2025
DHARMENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1420 of 2025
VINAY MANDRAH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1972 of 2025
KUMER SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2293 of 2025
PAWAN KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2550 of 2025
MOHIT NAYAK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 2576 of 2025
NILESH PARMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2619 of 2025
HARIRAM SINGH LODHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2764 of 2025
SURENDRA SINGH RAJPUT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2796 of 2025
RAMLAL VISHWAKARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3457 of 2025
DINESH CHANDRA MALI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3663 of 2025
SANTOSH TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3716 of 2025
SUHAGCHAND SOLANKI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3748 of 2025
JAGDISH PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3837 of 2025
ANGIRA PANDEY AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4025 of 2025
PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4078 of 2025
SMT.LAKSHMI AHIRWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5176 of 2025
AJAYPAL SINGH CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5640 of 2025
LAKHAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 5820 of 2025
NILESH UIKEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6221 of 2025
ABHISHEK GOND AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6694 of 2025
INDRAPAL BUNKAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 8366 of 2025
RAJESH MALVIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8502 of 2025
ASHARAM AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8718 of 2025
BUNDEL SINGH BAGHEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8755 of 2025
PAVITRA BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL, HOME GUARDS AND CIVIL DEFENCE AND
OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9553 of 2025
AJAY KUMAR DHURVEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9852 of 2025
RAM SINGH KUSHRAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
WRIT PETITION No. 10036 of 2025
JAIRAM NIWARIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10060 of 2025
LILADHAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10892 of 2025
MURAT SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10909 of 2025
SHIV CHARAN TEKAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 11257 of 2025
SHIV PRASAD CHOUREY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12371 of 2025
ROHIT RAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Advocates for the Petitioners/Appellants:
Shri D.K. Dixit, Senior Advocate, Shri Manoj Sharma, Senior
Advocate, Ms. Anjali Banerjee, Senior Advocate with Shri Anshul
Dixit, Ms.Shrankhala Dorekar, Ms. Shail Patel, Shri VikasMahawar,
Shri K.K. Pandey, Shri S.P. Dubey, Shri Gopal Singh, Shri S.P.
Mishra, Shri Prasanna R. Bhatnagar, learned Advocate (through
VC), Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, Shri Rajeev Badkur, Shri Vijay Tripathi,
Shri Praveen Yadav, Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, Ms. JailaxmiAiyer,
Shri RatneshYadav, Shri SatyendraDubey and Shri AmanTiwari,
Shri Surya Kumar Patel, Shri G.S. Baghel, Shri Vinay Pratap, Shri
VidyaPratap, Shri Vidya Prasad, Shri Ashok Kumar Chourasiya,
Ms. GhunchaRasool, Shri RohitPegwar, Shri Harsh Virmani, Shri
Kundanlal, Shri KhenchandRaikwar, Shri PankajAjmera, Shri
Lokesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Shri Rahul Kumar Chourasiya, Smt.
Deepika Seth, Shri Manoj Manav, Shri Nirmal Sharma, Shri Deo
Krishna Katare, Shri ArunKatare, Shri MumareshPathak, Shri
Siddharth Patel, Shri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, Shri Kaushtubh
Shankar Jha, Shri Vikram Singh, Shri AbhishekTiwari, Shri
PuneetChaturvedi, Shri VihagShekharDubey, Shri VakasRathi, Shri
Vidya Shankar Mishra, Shri Ganga Ram Saket, Shri
PriyanShrivastava, Shri Kamal Bhanvishwakarma, Shri
KaushalSisodiya, Shri Ashish Mishra, Shri Virendra Singh
Choudhary, Shri AbhishekArjariya, Shri ShaileshTiwari, Advocates.
Advocates for the Respondents:
Shri SwapnilGanguli, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri
GauravMaheshwari, Advocate for the State.
Reserved on :29.07.2025
Pronounced on : 26 .09.2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
1. All the Writ Petitions and Appeals raise common question of
law and have similar facts and as such all the petitions and appeals
were taken up for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by a
common judgment.
2. Petitioners and Appellants in their respective writ petitions and
appeals are serving as Sainiks in Home Guards. They were appointed
on different dates as Sainiks in Home Guards. The date of
appointment of each of the petitioner and appellant is not relevant for
the purposes of determining the controversy arising in these petitions
and appeals.
3. Petitioners and Appellants have primarily impugned the orders
whereby the Home Guards have been "called off" for a period of two
months.
4. The "call off" orders are claimed to have been passed in the
exercise of powers under Rule 27 (1) (c) of the Madhya Pradesh
Home Guard Rules 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules).
5. The Appellants had filed their respective Writ Petitions
impugning the respective orders whereby they were called off duty.
Since there was no challenge to any statutory provision or rule, said
Writ Petitions were listed before learned single judges of this court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Against the orders passed in the Said Petitions intra court writ appeals
have been filed which have been listed before us.
6. In the Writ Petitions before us, apart from challenging the
orders whereby the Sainiks in Home Guards were called off, there is a
challenge to the validity of the statutory provisions inter alia Section
7(2) of the Madhya PradeshHome Guards Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) and Rule 27 (1) (c) of the Rules and that is the
reason the Writ Petitions were also listed before the Division Bench.
7. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners/Appellants
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the Petitioners), that the Sainiks
in Home Guards of Madhya Pradesh perform the same functions and
duties which the constables of Regular Police Establishment perform
but they are denied similar benefits.
8. It is contended that the Homeguard Sainik Evam Pariwar
Kalyan Sangh and several Home Guard Sainiksfiled Writ Petitions
inter alia W.P. No. 10000/2010 (titled Homeguard Sainik Evam
Pariwar Kalyan Sangh versus State of Madhya Pradesh) seeking a
direction for declaring the post of Sainiks of Home Guards as a Civil
Post and for grant of all consequential benefits and to treat them at par
with the whole time staff of Home Guards. They also sought a
direction to the respondents to frame rules regarding their service
conditions including benefit of salary, allowances, increments, pay
scale, leave, provident fund, gratuity etc. at par with the Home Guards
appointed on substantive post. It is further contended that said petition
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
was disposed of vide order dated 02.12.2011 inter alia directing the
state government to lay down schemes, rules or regulations for
regulating the working of Home Guards establishment and as an
interim to give them minimum of the pay, payable to a Constable in
the Police Department and do away with the principle of calling off or
rotation of duty. It is submitted that the challenge to the said judgment
was negated up to the Supreme Court of India.
9. It is contended that thereafter a Committee was formed and the
Home Guard Rules of 2016 were framed. The 2016 Rules are also
under Challenge. The 2016 Rules, however prescribed the term of
service till the age of 60 years. The Rules provided for a system of
Calling off duty of Home Guards for a period of 2 months in a year.
Subsequently by an amendment, by notification dated 13.09.2022, the
duration of call out duty has been changed from 10 months in a year
to 34 months out of 36 months. During the period of Call off the
Home Guard Sainiks would not be entitled to any salary or
allowances.
10. It is submitted that the call off of two months in 12 months and
03 years as the case may be, is in breach of the orders passed in the
Homeguard Sainik Evam Pariwar Kalyan Sangh (supra)by this court.
It is contended that on account of the Call off, the Home Guard
remain unemployed for two months and that the Rule 27 (1) (c) is
violative of Article 14, 16, 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
11. It is also contended on behalf of the Petitioners that Section
7(2) of the Act, has become unconstitutional by efflux of time as the
rationale and determining principle used at the time of its enactment
is no longer reasonable. It is submitted that at the time when the said
provision was enacted, State Government did not need the Home
Guards as a full time force and they were raised and called put
specifically for occasions such as emergencies, Simhastha mela etc.
however, in the present days, the state government requires and is
using the services of Home Guards on a full time basis. This is
fortified by the fact that they are to be on call out duty for 34 months
out of 36 and to ensure their availability respondents have directed
that 90% of the sanctioned strength is always at work and only 10%
are to be called off as per roster.
12. It is also submitted on behalf of the Petitioners/Appellants that
since 2016, there has been no recruitment on the said post and as such
as on date Home Guards Sainiks much less than 90% of the
sanctioned strength are employed, thus there is no need to call off the
Home Guards on rotation basis even for 2 months in 36 months.
13. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent State contends
that Home Guard services are voluntary services and no benefits akin
to regular service can be claimed. It is contended that as per Rule
21(2) of the Rules, voluntary Home Guards can be called out not in
excess of 90% of the authorized strength of the district reserve force.
Call out up to 100% can only be made with prior approval of the State
Government. It is contended that initially call out was provided for 6
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
months in a year and from 2010 to 2022 it was 10 months in a year
and after the amendment on 13.09.2022, it was made 34 months in
three years.
14. It is contended that the engagement of Home Guard Sainik is
for real emergency, when the police force is inadequate to deal
effectively with the ongoing situation thus by giving limited
power/access, the assistance is being taken in general measure of
public welfare.
15. It is submitted that the voluntary Home Guard can surrender the
certificate and when the voluntary Home Guard is not engaged in
duty or training, then he/she can engage in any other employment, not
in conflict with the interest of the department. Thus the service
conditions are strictly not governed as per a regular government
servant.
16. It is contended that there is a presumption in favour of the
constitutionality and validity of a subordinate legislation and the
burden is upon him who attacks the validity. It is further contended,
that the call out is a policy decision and it is not for the courts to
consider the relative merits of different economic policies and
consider whether a wiser or better one can be evolved. For testing the
correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is the Parliament and
not the Courts. It is thus submitted that the Petitioners are not entitled
to be equated with the Police Constables or personnel and cannot
claim parity with pay or scales of pay as provided to Police Personnel.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
17. The gravamen of the Challenge in the Writ Appeals and the
Writ Petitions is to the orders passed by the respondents whereby all
the Sainiks in Home Guards are called off duty for a period of two
months. All the Sainiks in Home Guards who have been enrolled after
13.04.2016 have been decided to be called out on duty for a period of
10 months in a year and their services have been subjected to roster
system. Said decision has been taken under Rule 27(1)(c) of the
Rules. Subsequently, by an amendment in the year 2022 of Rule
27(1)(c) of the Rules, the call out period has been modified to 34
months in every 03 years. Besides challenging the respective orders
passed directing Call off of two months in a period of 12 months (pre
2022 amendment) and call off of two months in three years (post
2022 amendment). Petitioners also impugn the validity of Rules
27(1)(c) of the rules.
18. Challenge has thus been made to the validity of Section 7(2)
and 7 (2A) of the Act and Rules 27(1)(a), 27(1)(c), 27(2)(d) and 27(4)
of the Rules. Petitioners/Appellants have also sought regularization of
their service and to treat the Home Guards as equal to other
employees in the Police Departments and to treat them as permanent
employees and to grant consequential benefits as that of regular
employees. Further, retirement age enhancement has been sought till
the age of 62 years. We may note that in some of the petitions that
were filed prior to the amendment of the Rules in 2017, the age
enhancement is sought till the age of 60 years. The 2017 amendment
has enhanced the age to 60 years.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
19. The questions that arise for consideration in these petitions and
appeals are :
(i) Whether Section 7(2), 7(2A) of the Madhya Pradesh
Home Guards Act, 1947 and Rules 27(1)(a), 27(1)(c),
27(2)(d) and 27(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Home
Guards Rules, 2016 are unconstitutional and liable to
struck down?
(ii) If Section 7(2), 7(2A) of the Act and Rules 27(1)(a),
27(1)(c), 27(2)(d) and 27(4) of the Rules are valid, can
the Respondents still call off the Home Guard Sonics
for two months on roster basis?
(iii) Whether Sainiks of Home Guards are liable to treated
at par with the employees in the police department and
entitled to regualrisation of service and all
consequential benefits as regular/permanent
employees?
(iv) Whether the Sainiks are entitled to age enhancement
up to the age of 62 years?
20. Prior to referring to the statutory scheme of the Act and rules, it
would be expedient to refer to the earlier round of litigation on this
aspect. As noticed above, the issue of regualrisation and "Call Out"
was subject matter of litigation before this Court in W.P. No.
10000/2010 titled Homeguard Sainik Evam Pariwar Kalyan Sangh
versus State of Madhya Pradesh and other batch of petitions.
21. Reference may be had to the Judgment dated 02.12.2011 in
W.P. No. 10000/2010.The questions arising for consideration in the
said Petitions were as under:
"*****The relief claimed for in these writ petitions: are, that
the petitioners be declared as holders of "civil post" and
treating them to be so, all consequential benefits be granted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
to them as is being granted to regular employees of the State
Government, particularly in the Police Department. That
apart, further direction, sought for is to issue a. 'mandamus'
to the respondents directing them to frame rules and
regulations governing conditions of service for the persons
working in the Home Guards Organization, Particularly with
reference to pay scale, allowances, . increments, pensionary
benefits and. other service conditions, Further prayer made
is to, grant the benefit of pay and allowances as is paid to
other employees of the Police Department and treat the
petitioners as regular employees in the department and
finally it is claimed that after so regularizing and absorbing
them in. the regular establishment, the system of calling off
duty, which is followed be done away with."
(underlining supplied)
22. With regard to the claim for being declared as a Civil Post
Holder, the learned writ court relying upon the decision of the
Supreme Court of India in Mallikarjuna Rao & Others versus State of
Andhra Pradesh & Others (1990) 2 SCC 707, held that the court
could not issue a mandamus for implementing the recommendations
of the State Human Rights Commission and thus the relief could not
be granted.
23. Learned Judge in Homeguard Sainik Evam Pariwar Kalyan
Sangh (supra) held as under:
"24- Even though initially when the Act of 1947 was
enacted, the same was enforced for establishing a voluntary
organization and the organization that came into force was
also a voluntary organization, but the voluntary nature of the
organization lost its identity, with the passage of time and the
nature of work which the organization started performing
also underwent substantial change in due course of time, it
attained the status of a regular establishment. Even the
employees, like the petitioners, who are working have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
continued to work for more than 10-20 years and it is,
therefore, correct on the part of the petitioners in contending
that with the passage of time and with the manner in which
the organization had progressed, the voluntary nature of the
organization had ceased to exist. This aspect of the matter is
considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pantha
Chatterjee (supra){State of West Bengal versus Pantha
Chatterjee, AIR 2003 SC 3569} and after taking note of the
continued deployment of Home Guards for a period of more
than 10 years, in that particular case, it has been held by the
Supreme Court that the voluntary nature of the organization
has lost its identity and it has become more or less a regular
establishment. It is held by the Supreme Court that in the
prevailing situation, it is unfair on the part of the competent
authorities to contend that it is a voluntary organization and
no relationship of master and servant exists. It has been held
that the scheme, which was originally indicated as a
voluntary organization, has lost its characteristic and now it
is nothing but a regular establishment, catering to the needs
of the State in various matters.
25- Even though under the Act of 1947, the Home Guards
organization is termed to be a voluntary organization, the
nature of duties of the Home Guards as is specified in Section
10 clearly indicates that the Home Guards have to perform
various duties. The duties performed by the Home Guards
and the findings recorded by the Human Rights Commission
in this regard would be referred to after some point of time.
For the present, it may be taken note of that the State
Government itself feeling that the Home Guards organization
is no more a voluntary organization, temporary in nature, has
enacted various rules exercising powers under Article 309 of
the Constitution and if these rules are taken note of, it would
be seen that the State Government had been harping upon an
idea of creating a permanent organization with a permanent
set up, regular substantive posts were to be created with a
particular pay scale. The statutory rules framed in this
regard namely the Madhya Pradesh Home Guards (Gazetted)
Service Rules, 1973; the Madhya Pradesh Home Guards
[Class III Ministerial] Service Recruitment Rules, 1973; The
Madhya Pradesh Home Guards Class III (Ministerial)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Service Recruitment Rules, 1973; The Madhya Pradesh
Home Guards Class III (Executive) Recruitment Rules, 2000;
The Home Guards Class III (Executive) Recruitment Rules
and the Pension Rules are all examples of various enactment
made by the State Government for giving a permanent
characteristic to the Home Guards organization."
24. Learned Judge after referring to the report submitted by the
Human Rights Commission held that "the Home Guards are
discharging all the duties, which are being performed by a regular
police personnel except actual investigation into a crime and anti-
dacoity operations and this is the admission of the Director General
before the Commission."
25. It has further been held that "It is also seen from this report that
keeping in view the increasing demand of the Home Guards and due
to non-grant of adequate financial assistance from the State
Government, the system of calling off duty was introduced, in his
statement the Director General has admitted this position. It is,
therefore, clear from the statements of the Director General (Home
Guards) that the calling of duty was necessitated due to economic and
financial constraints inspite of requirement for the work."
26. It was further held as under:
"37- As already indicated hereinabove, this Court cannot
issue any 'mandamus' to the State Government for
implementing the recommendations of the Human Rights
Commission in its totality nor can the principle of 'equal pay
for equal work' be enforced. Similarly, the declaration sought
by the petitioners for declaring them as civil post holders
and, therefore, to regularize treating them to be "civil post"
holders can also be not granted in view of the judgments
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
rendered by this Court in the case of Kedar Prasad (supra)
and again in the case of Pun Pratap Singh (supra), wherein it
has been held by Division Bench of this Court that as the
Home Guards are not civil post holders and they did not
enjoy 'equal pay for equal work' in the absence of rules being
framed and made applicable to them by the State
Government. To that effect, the objections raised by Shri R.D.
Jain, learned Advocate General, has to be upheld.
38- But, at the same time taking note of the fact that the
petitioners, who are Home Guards, and are required to work
continuously year after year and are not even getting the bare
minimum salary as is given to their counterparts in the Police
Department, the amount paid presently is not sufficient
enough to sustain them and their family, relief has to be
granted to them so that they can earn living wage by working
as Home Guards and at the same time the system of calling
of, which is not at all justified in any manner, should be done
away with.
39- During the course of hearing of this petition Shri R.D.
Jain, the learned Advocate General, except for contending
that the recommendations made by the State Human Rights
Commission cannot be enforced, did not point out even a
single error or illegality or perversity in the findings of fact
recorded by the State Human Rights Commission, with regard
to the manner in which the Home Guards are treated in the
State of Madhya Pradesh. Not a single ground was canvassed
during the time of hearing to show as to why the findings
recorded in this Report be not taken to be correct. If the facts
that have come out in the Report are correct, then it clearly
shows that the constitutional and fundamental rights of the
Home Guards are being violated and the State Government is
not even following the mandate of the Constitution for
protecting the rights of the Home Guards.
40- This Court had passed an interim order directing for
payment of certain minimum salary and doing away with the
system of calling of. Even though the order was passed more
than three months back on 22.9.2011, the order has not been
given affect to and the State Government by filing an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
application for recall has not given any reason as to why the
said directions cannot be implemented. Except for contending
that the financial and economic condition of the State
Government prevents the State Government from
implementing the said directions, no justifiable reason is
given as to why the decision cannot be implemented.
Financial constraints of the State Government cannot be an
excuse for denying the constitutional rights of an employee
discharging duties for the State Government. The Home
Guards are performing duty by protecting the life and liberty
of the citizens of the State and safeguarding the properties
and assets of the State Government and whey they are doing
so, the bare minimum of paying them some living wage,
enough to sustain them has to be granted and mere financial
constraints cannot be an excuse for denying the said benefit
to the petitioners.
41- In a welfare State and particularly when the State has
to act as a model employer, the State is required to set an
example by giving wages and salary sufficient enough to
sustain an employee and his family. The State cannot be
permitted to act like a private employer and exploit the
working class or the labour force doing duties for the State
and citizens. The State has to act as a model employer and in
the absence of any cogent justification from the Government
for not doing so, the excuse of financial constraints cannot be
accepted.
***** ***** *****
47- While evaluating the facts with regard to working
conditions of the Home Guards, the State Human Rights
Commission has found that in the matter of prescribing
working conditions of the petitioners and in the matter of
granting them various facilities, the basic human rights
requirement are not complied with and it is violative of
Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution. If that be so and if
the basic human rights and constitutional rights are found to
be violated, this Court cannot simply close its eyes and leave
it to the Government to take a decision at its own sweet will.
For more than 50 years, nothing has been done and it is not
known as to for how many more years, the petitioners and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
Home Guards will have to suffer this violation of their basic
human rights in the matter of giving them a fair wage and
other working and service conditions, decent enough to
maintain themselves and their family.
48- Under such circumstances, even though this Court
deems it appropriate to leave it to the State Government to
take a final decision into the matter, but with a view to do
immediate justice to some extent to the petitioners, the
interest of not only justice, but the constitutional mandate
requires that till a final decision is not taken by the State
Government, as a measure of interim relief or interim benefit,
some relief should be granted to the petitioners so that their
grievance are mitigated to some extent and the violation of
their human and constitutional rights are to some extent
remedied and it was taking note of all these factors that an
interim order was passed by this Court on 22.9.2011,
directing the respondents atleast to give to each of the
petitioners the minimum of the pay, payable to a Constable in
the Police Department and in doing away with the principle
of calling of or rotation of duty.
49- In view of the aforesaid and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, for the grounds and reasons
indicated hereinabove, these petitions are allowed in part.
Even though this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue
any 'mandamus' with regard to the prayer made by the
petitioners for declaring them as civil post holders or for
granting them regular service alongwith regular benefits
available to a personnel in the police department, the
following directions are issued in the facts of the present
case:
(a) On receipt of a certified copy of this order, the State
Government shall take note of the recommendations made by
the State Human Rights Commission and if required after
constituting a High Level Committee or Commission to go
into the questions and recommendations made by the Human
Rights Commission and after studying the organization,
working set up and other factors in the establishment of the
Home Guards, make endeavour to lay down schemes, rules
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
or regulations for regulating the working of the Home
Guards establishment and if required, may formulate
statutory rules and regulations in this regard, for prescribing
their service conditions.
(b) Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, all the
employees working in the Home Guards department and who
are petitioners before this Court, so also other similarly
situated persons, who may have not filed writ petitions, be
granted salary at the minimum/basic of the pay prescribed
for the lowest post i.e. .... constable in the police department,
without any running pay scale, allowances etc.
(c) All the employees would be entitled to the minimum of
the pay scale i.e. .... the basic of the pay, as is payable to a
constable in the police department, and the said benefit shall
be extended to the employees with effect from 1.1.2011.
(d) The employees would be paid the aforesaid amount
with revision of basic pay, if any, in the corresponding police
department from time to time hereafter, till a final scheme or
regular rules and regulations are not formulated for working
in the Home Guards organization.
(e) Apart from the aforesaid, the system of calling of duty
shall be done away with and the employees shall be employed
throughout the year subject to their being physically fit or
otherwise entitled to work in accordance to law.
50- If this Court does not grant even this bare minimum
relief to the petitioners, this Court would be failing in its duty
of protecting the constitutional rights of the petitioners and
having been prima facie satisfied that the action of the State
Government is unjustified and amounts to violation of the
constitutional and human rights, cannot sit back and look
without issuing any directions. It is under these compelling
circumstances that this Court is constrained to pass this
order so that till the State Government takes a final decision
into the matter, the petitioners are granted some interim
benefit."
(underlining supplied)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
27. In Homeguard Sainik Evam Pariwar Kalyan Sangh (supra)
learned single judge of this court issued a direction to the State
Government to consider the report of the Human Rights Commission
and directed that till a final decision was taken by the State
Government, some interim benefit should be granted to the Home
Guards so that their grievance are mitigated to some extent and the
violation of their human and constitutional rights are to some extent
remedied. The Learned Judge noticed that by an interim order dated
22.09.2011, it was inter alia directed the respondents to atleast give
to each of them the minimum of the pay, payable to a Constable in the
Police Department and to do away with the principle of calling of or
rotation of duty. Learned Judge further directed the State Government
to take note of the recommendations made by the State Human Rights
Commission and to endeavour to lay down schemes, rules or
regulations for regulating the working of the Home Guards
establishment and to formulate statutory rules and regulations in this
regard, for prescribing their service conditions. Learned Judge also
directed that the system of calling of duty shall be done away with
and the employees shall be employed throughout the year subject to
their being physically fit or otherwise entitled to work in accordance
to law.
28. The Judgment dated 02.12.2011 in Homeguard Sainik Evam
Pariwar Kalyan Sangh (supra) was challenged before the Division
Bench of this Court. The Division Bench in W.A. 80 of 2012 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
W.A. 106 of 2012 and other batch of appeals by its order dated
08.05.2011 held as under:
"In these appeals, it is not the stand of the State Government
that the State Government has no work to provide
employment to these Home Guards throughout the year and
that they would sit idle and would get payment without
performing any duty. It has also not been shown to us that
how the State Government which is expected to be a model
employer, can deny minimum wages to its employees. Under
Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 the
State Human Rights Commission may make recommendations
to the State Government. The State Government has to
consider the recommendation which may be made by State
Human Right Commission.
The only argument advanced before us by the learned
Government Advocate while arguing the appeals filed on
behalf of the State is that High Level Committee which is to
examine the recommendations of the Human Rights
Commission may feel Itself inhibited because of the
observations and finding given by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned order.
Having regard to the aforesaid submissions it is clarified that
while examining the recommendations of the State Human
Commission, the High Level committee would not be
influenced in any manner by any of the observations made in
the order of learned Single Judge or any of the observations
made above in this order. In fact, when the State Government
takes a final decision after the recommendations of the High
Level Committee, the State Government will also not be
influenced by any of the observations referred to above. Both,
the High Level Committee and the State Government, will
consider the recommendations of the State Human Rights
Commission independently keeping in mind the constitutional
and human rights of the persons involved, the needs and
requirements of the establishment and the capacity of Home
Guards to fulfill such needs.
(underlining supplied)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
29. The order of the Division Bench became subject matter of
challenge before the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (C) CC No.
21470 - 21471 of 2014 titled State of M.P. & Ors versus Damodar
Malviya & Others and other batch of Special Leave Petitions. The
Supreme Court of India by its order dated 21.01.2015 noticed the
contention of the State that State was primarily aggrieved by the
direction issued by the court in clause (c) of the judgment and order
of the Court, which was the direction to the State to pay the minimum
of the pay-scale i.e. the basic of the pay, as was payable to a
constable in the police department w.e.f. 01.01.2011 and the
contention that if such a direction was to be complied with by the
State, it had to face heavy financial burden.
30. The Supreme Court of India after considering the submissions
made by the parties, held that if the benefit that was payable to the
Home Guards was modified to the extent that the said benefit shall be
paid by the State w.e.f. 01.12.2011, it would not cause prejudice either
to the State or to the respondents. Accordingly, it was directed that the
benefit of the basic pay as ordered by the High Court be extended to
the Home Guards not w.e.f. 01.01.2011 but w.e.f. 01.12.2011 till the
date honorarium had been enhanced to Rs. 9000/- by the State
Government. The Supreme Court further directed the State
Government to frame appropriate rules and regulations for regulating
the working conditions of the respondents/home guards as early as
possible and till such time to pay to the respondents/home guards the
honorarium that was fixed by the State Government on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
recommendations made by the high level Committee from the date
such recommendation was made by the high level committee.
31. It may be noticed from the orders of the Division Bench and the
Supreme Court that the grievance of the State Government had been
primarily to the direction for payment of higher pay. There was no
challenge to the direction for doing away with the concept of "call
off".
32. We may thus note that the question as to whether the Home
Guard Sainiks are liable to be treated at par with the employees in the
police department and entitled to regualrisation of service and all
consequential benefits as regular/permanent employees has already
been conclusively decided against the Home Guard Sainiks in
Homeguard Sainik Evam Pariwar Kalyan Sangh (supra). The Court
has already held that "the declaration sought by the petitioners for
declaring them as civil post holders and, therefore, to regularize
treating them to be "civil post" holders can also be not granted". It
has also been held that "the system of calling of duty shall be done
away with and the employees shall be employed throughout the year
subject to their being physically fit or otherwise entitled to work in
accordance to law."
33. As noticed hereinabove, the Supreme Court in the appeal by the
State noticed that the State was primarily aggrieved by the direction
issued by the Court to the State to pay the minimum of the pay-scale
i.e. the basic of the pay, as was payable to a constable in the police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
department w.e.f. 01.01.2011. No challenge was laid to the direction
by the learned Single Judge of doing away with the system of
"Calling Off". Thus State cannot follow the concept of Call off either
for two months in a year or two months in three years as is sought to
be done.
34. We may at this juncture also examine the Statutory Scheme of
the Act and the Rules. Reference may be had to the relevant
provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1947. Section 7
(2) and Section 10 of the Act reads as under:
"Section 7 -Duties and training of Home Guards-
(1) ********
(2) Subject to any rules made in this behalf a Home Guard
may be required to undergo training for such period and in
such manner as may be prescribed after which he shall serve
as a Home Guard for a period of six months which period
may be extended by the State Government to a total period of
not more than twelve months if the State Government
considers such extension necessary and shall thereafter serve
in the reserve for a period of three years and while in the
reserve shall be liable to be called out for duty at any time.
(2-A) The Commandant-General may with the written
consent of a Home Guard, extend from time to time the
period of service of such Home Guard in the reserve and
thereupon such Home Guard shall serve in the reserve for a
further period of three years and while in the reserve shall be
liable to be called out for duty at any time.
Section 10- Calling out Home Guards-
(1) The District Magistrate having jurisdiction over any
revenue district or part thereof in which Home Guards are
raised may by an order made in such manner as may be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
prescribed call out any Home Guard for the discharge of any
duty assigned to the Home Guards in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and the rules made there under].
(2) The District Magistrate may, in cases of emergency, by
order in writing, direct that the power of calling out any
Home Guard under sub-section (1) for the purpose of
securing the public safety or preventing the commission of
offences against person or property shall, in such
circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be
specified in that direction be exercised by any Magistrate not
being a Magistrate of the third class or a police officer not
below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police.
(3) The Commandant-General or such officer of the Home
guards as may be authorised by him in this behalf may call
out the Home guards in any area for the performance of any
duty relating to any general measure of public welfare and
prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 7."
35. Section 7(2) and (2A) of the Act stipulates that a Home Guard
shall serve as a Home Guard for a period of six months which may be
extended by the State Government to a total period of twelve months
and shall thereafter serve for a period of three years and while in
reserve shall be liable to be called out for duty at any time. Section
7(2A) empowers the Commandant - General, with the consent of a
Home Guard extend the period of service of the Home Guard from
time to time and thereupon the Home Guard shall serve in reserve for
a further period of three years and while in reserve shall be liable to
be called out for duty at any time.
36. Section 10 of the Act empowers the District Magistrate having
jurisdiction over any revenue district in which Home Guards are
raised may call out any Home Guard for the discharge of any duty
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
assigned to the Home Guards. The District Magistrate in cases of
emergency may delegate the power of calling out any Home Guard to
any Magistrate not being a Magistrate of the third class or a police
officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police. The
Commandant-General or any authorized officer of the Home guards
may also call out the Home guards for the performance of any
prescribed duty relating to any general measure of public welfare.
37. Rule 21 (2) of the Rules prescribes that the total number of
Home Guards called out shall not be in excess of 90% of the
authorized strength of the District Reserve and Call out upto 100%
can be made with the prior approval of the State Government. Rule 21
(2) reads as under:
"Rule 21. Calling out of Home Guards:-
(1) *****
(2) The total number of the Volunteer Home Guards so called
out shall not be in excess of 90% of the authorized strength of
the District Reserve. Call Out up to 100% can only be made
with the prior approval of the state Government.
(3) ******"
38. Rule 27 of the Rules is the main rule under challenge in these
petitions and appeals. The Rule underwent amendment in 2017 and
2022. Some of the Petitions were filed prior to each the 2017
amendment and some prior to and some post the 2022 amendment
and as such the rule as it existed prior to the 2017 amendment with
the amendments of 2017 and 2022 is extracted hereinafter:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
"27. Conditions of Service: (1) Term of Enrolment:-
(a) On successful completion of training a Volunteer
Home Guard shall serve as a Home Guards for a
period of six months, which may be extended by the
State Government to a total period of not more than 12
months if the State Government considers such
extension necessary and shall thereafter serve in the
reserve for a period of three years and while in reserve
shall be liable to be called out for duty at any time.
(b) A volunteer Home Guard shall be eligible for
extension of his enrolment on completion of his initial
period of enrolment from time to time subject to his
satisfactory conduct antecedent, character
verification, medical examination, physical fitness and
willingness, on the recommendation of District Review
committee headed by an officer nominated by the
Director General not below the rank of Divisional
Commandant. The extension shall be allowed upto the
age of 41 years only. (amended to 60 years by the
2017 amendment).
(c) A volunteer Home Guard shall be on call out duty for
10 months in a year. (amended to 34 months in every
03 years by the 2022 amendment) Equal opportunity
to be called out shall be ensured for each volunteer
enrolled on the District reserve. A proper roster shall
be prepared and published for this purpose and copy
of it shall be made available to volunteers on demand.
(2) Discharge of a Volunteer Home Guard:- A Volunteer
Home Guard shall be liable to be discharged in the following
conditions:-
(a) On account of his unwillingness to continue in the
District Home Guard Reserve,
(b) Failure to pass the examination on completion of basic
training even after giving one more opportunity,
(c) Being found unsuitable or physically unfit.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
(d) On completing the age of 41 years. (amended to 60
years by the 2017 amendment)
(e) On imposition of punishment of discharge.
(f) On filing of charge sheet in a criminal case or on
being detained in police custody for more than 48
hours.
The competent authority shall, under the aforesaid
conditions, issue the discharge order in Appendix G.
(3) Deployment: A Volunteer Home Guard when Called
Out for duty under rule-21 shall be liable to be deployed at
any place in Madhya Pradesh or anywhere in the Country or
beyond and even in any foreign country by an special order
issued by the State Government. Deployment in foreign
country shall normally be made with the consent of the
concerned volunteer Home Guard.
(4) Allowances: A Volunteer Home Guard on Call Out
duty or Training, shall receive Honorarium and other
allowances as fixed by the Government from time to time.
(5) Bar on employment during period of enrolment:-
(a) A volunteer Home Guard when on Call Out duty or
training shall not engage himself into any other
employment.
(b) A volunteer Home Guard when not on duty or training
shall be at liberty to engage himself in any job or a
vocation under intimation to the District
Commandant.
Provided that,-
(i) No such job or avocation whether full time or
part time shall be accepted by him, which may involve
conflict of interest with that of the department.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
(ii) He shall not engage himself in any job or
avocation unbecoming of his status as a member of
District Reserve of Home Guard."
39. Rule 27 of the Rules dealing with the Conditions of Service
stipulates that on successful completion of training the Volunteer
Home Guard shall serve as a Home Guards for a period of six months,
which period could be extended by the State Government to a
maximum of 12 months and thereafter shall serve in the reserve for a
period of three years. While in reserve he/she shall be liable to be
called out for duty at any time.
40. Rule 27 of the Rules further provides that the Home Guard shall
be eligible for extension of his/her enrolment on completion of his/her
initial period of enrolment from time to time subject to certain
conditions. The extension shall be allowed upto the age of 60 years.
41. Rule 27 further stipulates that volunteer Home Guard shall be
on call out duty for 34 months in every 03 years. It is this stipulation
that is primarily under challenge in these petitions and appeals.
42. As per Rule 27 of the Rules, the Volunteer Home Guard has to
serve after completion of his training for six months, this period can
be extended upto twelve months and thereafter he/she has to be
placed in reserve. During reserve he is liable to be called out for
service. This rule thus implies that during the initial period of six
months or twelve months after training, he shall remain on duty
throughout and the concept of call out does not apply to him. After the
expiry of the said period, he is placed in reserve and while serving in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
reserve he is liable to be called out for duty for 34 months in three
years.
43. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State
candidly admitted that there is no order passed in respect of any
Volunteer Home Guard, placing him/her in reserve.
44. It may be noticed that in all cases orders are being passed of
"call off" for a period of two months in twelve months in pre 2022
amendment and for a period of two months in thirty six months post
the 2022 amendment.
45. We may note that there is no concept of "Call Off" in the Act or
the Rules. The concept is of "Call Out". "Call Out" implies that as
and when there is a necessity, the Competent Authority shall "Call
Out" the Volunteer Home Guards to come out and provide their
services. The Volunteer Home Guards who are serving in reserve, till
they attain the age of 60 years, can be called out as and when there is
a need. However, what the respondents are doing is that the Volunteer
home Guards are deemed to be on permanent "Call Out" but for two
months are put on "Call Off".
46. The purpose of raising of the Home Guards force, is apparent
from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, which reads as
under:
"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 co-operation from the members
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
of the public. The present unsettled conditions point to the
vital necessity of securing such co-operation 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."
47. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act clearly shows
that it was felt that in real emergencies the ordinary police force is
inadequate to deal effectively with the forces of disorder without
fuller assistance and co-operation from the members of the public.
The "Home Guards" was envisaged to 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.
48. At the time when the concept of Home Guards was envisaged,
it was felt that in certain situations and times, the ordinary police
force may not be sufficient to deal with the issues arising and there
may be a necessity to "Call Out" a trained individual, who had
volunteered to serve as a Home Guard. Since, it was not treated as a
full time service, the Home Guards, while in reserve, were free to take
up other vocations and employment subject to certain conditions.
However, they could be called out to serve from time to time. As
noticed above, Rule 27 provided a maximum period of call out as ten
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
months in a year pre 2022 amendment and 34 months in three years
post the 2022 amendment.
49. Over the years, with the increase in population, there was a
need to increase the strength of the police force for the purposes of
maintaining law and order, the protection of the person and property
of the citizen and public safety. However, the increase in strength of
the police force could not keep up with the requirement and that it
apparent from the change in concept in which Call Out is being
implemented. From "Call Out" it has changed to "Call Off". "Call
Out" implies that the Home Guard is not on duty till called out. On
the other hand "Call Off" implies that they are on duty 24 x 7 till
called off. From the Act and the Rules, is evident that there is no
concept of "Call Off". The Act and Rules provide for a concept of
"Call Out" and not "Call Off".
50. It is not the case of the Respondents that they do not have the
necessity to supplement the police force 24 x 7. When there is a
necessity to supplement the police force 24 x 7, there is no apparent
logic as to why the concept of "Call Off" is being applied. As per the
Respondents, no direct recruitment has been done for the last 15
years, except for some compassionate appointment and 2700
inductions during the 2016 Singhanstha Kumbh.
51. As per Rule 21 of the Rules, "Call Out" shall not be in excess
of 90% of the authorized strength of the District Reserve. However,
"Call Out" up to 100% can be made with the prior approval of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
state Government. As against the sanctioned strength of 15,800 Home
Guards, only 9,438 are working and there are 6,362 vacancies. Thus,
even as per the Respondents only 59% of the Home Guards are
serving. Even if all the Home Guards are on "Call Out" throughout
the year, as is being prayed by the Petitioners/ appellants, respondents
would not fall foul of Rule 21 of the Rules.
52. Apart from the grievance raised as being Called Off for a period
of two months, there is no ground raised by the Appellants/Petitioners
to lay a challenge to the validity of the Act and the Rules. The
challenge to the validity of Section 7(2), 7(2A) of the Madhya
Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1947 and Rules 27(1)(a), 27(1)(c),
27(2)(d) and 27(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Home Guards Rules, 2016
is thus negated.
53. In view of the above, the questions that arise are thus answered
and the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals are disposed of in the
following terms:
(i) Section 7(2), 7(2A) of the Madhya Pradesh Home Guards
Act, 1947 and Rules 27(1)(a), 27(1)(c), 27(2)(d) and 27(4) of
the Madhya Pradesh Home Guards Rules, 2016 are not
unconstitutional or liable to be struck down. The Challenge is
thus negated.
(ii) However, Respondents cannot call off the Home Guard
Sainiks for two months on roster basis. The Home Guard
Sainiks shall be on Call Out duty throughout the year till the
percentage mentioned in Rule 21 of the Rules is achieved. i.e.
till the strength of Home Guards exceed 90% of the authorized
strength of the District Reserve.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49808
(iii) The Sainiks of Home Guards cannot be treated at par
with the employees in the police department and entitled to
regualrisation of service or all consequential benefits as
regular/permanent employees in the present rule position.
(iv) No mandamus can be issued to the State Government to
enhance the age upto 62 years. However, it is open to the State
Government to take a decision on the said demand.
(v) Respective orders of Call Off are set aside.
(vi) All Home Guard Sainiks shall be deemed to be on Call
Out Duty, throughout the year and entitled to all consequential
benefits of pay and allowance in respect of the same.
54. All the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions are disposed of in the
above terms. There shall be no orders as to Costs.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
YOGESH KUMAR SHIRVASTAVA
2025.10.06 16:16:26 +05'30'
