IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.11823 of 2008 with CWP(T) Nos. 11782, 12310, 13770, 14039, 14115, 14205, 14586, 14905, 15105 and 936 of 2008. Dated of Decision : October 9, 2009. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP(T) No.11823 of 2008. Babu Ram and others .. Petitioners. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents. 2. CWP (T) No.11782 of 2008. Kashmiri Lal and others .. Petitioners. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents. 3. CWP(T) No.12310 of 2008. Sanjeev Kumar and others .. Petitioners. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents. 4. CWP(T) No.13770 of 2008. Begam Zamila .. Petitioner. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents. 5. CWP(T) No.14039 of 2008. Bal Kishan and others .. Petitioners. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents. 6. CWP(T) No.14115 of 2008. Balwinder Singh and another .. Petitioners. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents. 7. CWP(T) No.14205 of 2008. Tanuj Kumar and others .. Petitioners. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents. - 2 - 8. CWP(T) No.14586 of 2008. Shamsu Deen and others .. Petitioners. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents. 9. CWP(T) No.14905 of 2008. Narain Dass .. Petitioner. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents. 10. CWP(T) No.15105 of 2008. Mohinder Singh and others .. Petitioners. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents. 11. CWP(T) No.936 of 2008. Brahma Nand and others .. Petitioners. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s) : Mr.Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.M. Bisht, & Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra,Dy. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral): All the aforesaid eleven writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment, being identical and already covered matters by the earlier judgments, passed by this court. Whether reports of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 3 - The petitioners are enrolled as volunteer Home Guards with the State of Himachal Pradesh. They filed the Original Applications before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and prayed their regularization in the service. Vide different orders; passed on the aforesaid applications, the State Administrative Tribunal ordered the status quo, as existed on that date. In view of this order of status quo, the petitioners, who were actually functioning as Home Guards on that date, continued to function as such. The State Administrative Tribunal was abolished on the enactment of H.P. Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act 2008 (No. 14 of 2008) as such the pending matters were transferred to this court. According to the petitioners herein, the Home Guards force is permanently needed in the State and the petitioners are serving over the years and they cannot be said to be volunteers or of a casual nature, and further their pay and allowances should be at par with their counter-parts in the Police Department and prayed that they may be allowed to continue - 4 - in service without any fictional breaks and are also entitled for pensionary benefits on superannuation. The respondents filed their reply and contested the claim of the petitioners precisely on the ground that they were enrolled as volunteers in the Home Guards Department on their willingness for a period of three years as per the provisions of “Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1968” and the rules made thereunder, as amended from time to time. If they so desire they can continue as such till attaining the age of 58 years and thereafter they serve in the Reserved Force till attaining the age of 60 years. The Home Guards volunteers are called for duty only when their services are required by the Government/Department in the public interest and are being paid remunerations and honorarium as authorized by the State Government. They are volunteers and are not appointed on regular pay or wages. However, their grievances are heard and their welfare is also looked after within the legal parameters. They are also given the temporary disability allowance, invalid pension, family pension to the next of kin of Home Guards volunteers who - 5 - dies on duty, extra ordinary family pension and ex-gratia grant as introduced by the State Government in the year 1989 for the welfare of the Home Guards. The State Government has also reserved 15% of the posts of Constable in the State Police Department, Forest Guards in the Forests Department and Warden in the Prisons Department in addition to it 100% posts of Fireman in the Fire Department are also filled up from amongst the Home Guard volunteers. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Admittedly, the number of volunteer Home Guards is much larger than the requirement of the State. Therefore, the State follows the policy of rotation while giving them work as Home Guards. The volunteer Home Guards are appointed only for a period of three months at a time so that, all the volunteers get a chance to work as Home Guard. Some of the volunteers of the Home Guards had filed CWP No. 780 of 1998 titled Veer Singh and another vs. State of H.P. and others for seeking similar reliefs, which was dismissed on 11th May, 2005 thereafter some filed CWP No. 588 of 2005 titled Ram Kumar Sharma and others vs. State of H.P. and others - 6 - which met the similar fate vide order dated 26th May, 2008. We have considered the provisions of the Act and Rules aforesaid. The petitioners have not been appointed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and there is nothing even remotely to suggest that they were appointed in the regular establishment of the Home Guards. The present petitions for seeking identical reliefs are already covered by the decisions of this Court and the apex Court. Hence, no relief can be granted to them. All the petitions are therefore, dismissed. All interim orders shall stand vacated and all miscellaneous application (s) shall also stand dismissed. (Deepak Gupta) Judge (Surinder Singh) Judge October 9 , 2009. (cm)