Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/34/2017 on 3 August, 2022
Office Notes, reports,
SL. orders or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and Registrar's
order with Signatures
03.08.2022 WPSS No. 3233 of 2018
With
WPSS No. 34 of 2017.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Standing Counsel for
Union of India/respondents.
Brief facts of the case are, that the
petitioners in the present writ petition, who are nine
in number, have come up with the case that the
petitioners, or their predecessors were, Gurillas or the
legal heirs of the Gurillas, who are working as a
substitute armed forces, to the paramilitary services
and had rendered their services in the interest of the
nation under the nomenclature of "Intensively
Trained Volunteers (ITVs)". This Class of Gurilla
warfare and to the group to which the petitioners or
some of their predecessors belonged were associated
with the S.S.B. and were directly functioning under
the control of the Cabinet/Secretariat.
Ever since 2003, since the Gurillas (a class
of armed personnel) having acquired the status of
being a paramilitary force, they came under the direct
control Ministry of Home Affairs, ignoring the claim
and the extension of benefit to the Gurilla, who were
the Members by the S.S.B. The matter was agitated
before Guwahati High Court, Imphal Bench in Writ
Appeal No. 142 of 2000, Union of India & others
vs. The President and others.
The Guwahati High Court in its Division
Bench judgement rendered on 24.01.2001, after
considering the entire conspicuous of the claim raised
by the Association; as well as the individual
Members of the Military and Paramilitary Forces and
their heirs and taking into consideration the S.S.B.
news bulletin as published in 1983, as well as the
various other aspects, the Division Bench had issued
a direction to the Government of India, to regularise
the services of the volunteers who were working or
presently working in the capacity of Paramilitary
Forces in the Gurilla warefare. The following
direction was issued:-
"This being the position we find no
difficulty for the Union of India to comply with said
order. So far clause Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of the direction
given by the learned single Judge are concerned, we
find nothing to interfere so far clause No.2 is
concerned, learned central Govt. stand counsel
submits that in order to comply the entire order
passed by the learned single judge w.e.f. 1-7-2000
would be impracticable.
Heard the learned counsel for the
respondents on that point also we are of the opinion
that the central Government must regularize the
services of the volunteers as mentioned in clause (1)
of the impugned judgment w.e.f. that date of
judgment viz. 8-9-2000 instead of 1-7-2000. The
exercise a directed above, must be completed within
three months."
The judgment of the Division Bench of
Guwahati High Court was challenged by the Union
of India, before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP
(Civil) No. 8074 of 2001, Union of India & others
vs. VVF, Welfare Organisation & others.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment of
12.02.2003, had dismissed the SLP preferred by the
Government of India and has affirmed the judgment
of Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court,
whereby, the extension of benefit as contended to be
extended to the Gurillas and the legal heirs of the
Gurilla family members of the paramilitary services,
who were the members of the so called group called
as "Intensively Trained Volunteers" were extended
with the benefit.
A similar issue came up for consideration
before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 1575 of 2006, Mohan Singh &
others vs. Union of India & others. The Coordinate
Bench of this Court too, in its judgment of
14.12.2011, after taking into consideration the
implication of the Division Bench judgment of
Guwahati High Court and its subsequent affirmation
by the Hon'ble Apex Court has relegated the matter
to the competent authority to extend the benefits, as it
has been determined by the Division Bench judgment
of Guwahati High Court.
Despite of the aforesaid settled preposition
of law by the constitutional Courts, the petitioners are
still craving for the grant of similar benefits as they
are prayed for in the writ petition, despite being
similarly placed.
Since the issue is no more res integra and
has been settled upto Hon'ble Apex Court, this Writ
Petition, would too stand disposed of in terms of the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court as
rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1575 of 2006,
Mohan Singh & others vs. Union of India &
others, as decided on 14.12.2011, but with the slight
clarification, that when the respondents are
considering the claim of the petitioner, as it has been
settled to be extended by Division Bench of the
Guwahati High Court, the respondents would be
conscious of considering the claim of the petitioners
in the light of the decision, which has been affirmed
up to the Apex Court and it is expected that the
respondents, will extend the similar benefits, as it has
been extended to the petitioners of the Writ Petition,
who were the respondents in SLP No. 8074 of 2001.
It is hoped and trusted that the respondents will take a
decision and pass an appropriate suitable order,
within a period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stand
disposed of.
Disposal of this Writ Petitions, subject to
the aforesaid observation, will not preclude the
petitioners right to re-approach the Court in an event
if there is a denial for extension of benefit to the
petitioners, as directed by the judgment of Division
Bench of Guwahati High Court and affirmed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
Let copy of the order be placed in the
connected Writ Petition also.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
03.08.2022
Nahid
