IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 469/2007 and CWPs No. 470 and 506 of 2007 Reserved on: 16.9.2008 Decided on: 25.9. 008 CWP No. 469/2007: Special Security Bureau Volunteers Organization…Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CWP No. 470/2007: Special Security Bureau Volunteers Organization…Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CWP No. 506/2007: Special Securtiy Bureau Volunteers Organization. Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.yes For the petitioners : Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate. (in all the petitions) For the Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of (in all the petitions) India. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Rajiv Sharma, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, these were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are that the petitioners are claiming themselves to be enrolled in the force known as Special Security Bureau Volunteers Organization. The members of the organization as per the averments contained in the writ petitions are imparted training of 56 days, including Guerilla War Fare and Social Welfare. The female members of the force are imparted training at Kasumpti, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh Camp) and the male members are imparted training in Sarahan (Himachal Pradesh Camp). The volunteers force was raised in the year 1965 after the Chinese aggression. The precise case set out by the petitioners is that they are working as members of the Volunteer Force for the last 32 years, but the respondents have not regularized/absorbed them as regular members of the force at par with the members of the Village Volunteer Force, Manipur. The case of the respondents precisely is that all the petitioners are volunteers and they were never enrolled/recruited and their cases are not comparable with the members of the Village Volunteer Force, Manipur. Mr. R.M. Manhas learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has strenuously argued that the petitioners are to be treated at par with the members of the Village Volunteer Force, Manipur and their cases are also covered by the judgment of the Gauhati High Court rendered in Civil Rule No. 202 of 1998 decided on 8.9.2000. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India has contended that the petitioners were picked up as volunteer and they 3 have been imparted training from time to time for which period they were paid daily allowance. He further contended that the petitioners were never enrolled/engaged as members in the Volunteer Force and they cannot claim parity with the members of the Village Volunteer Force, Manipur. He has distinguished the judgment rendered by the Gauhati High Court. At the threshold it will be apt to take into consideration the precise status of the petitioners as per Annexure A-1. It is clear from Annexure A-1 that following Chinese aggression in 1962, it was felt that preparing the border population to meet such a contingency was as important as strengthening the conventional defence preparedness. It was decided by the Government that security preparedness in remote/border areas of the country should be strengthened through a well integrated plan, which would draw upon and utilize the active support of the border population. The Special Service Bureau was initially set up with the objective of achieving ‘total security preparedness’ in the remote border areas for performing a ‘stay behind’ role in the event of war. The organization under the aegis of Cabinet Secretariat worked in strategically, vulnerable, inhospitable, hazardous and remote areas of 15 Border States, among the local population, with the following stated aims and objectives: “To motivate, mobilize and prepare the people in the remote/border regions for security and defense of the country. To build up the will of the people to resist external aggression to check infiltration, subversion and sabotage. To collect intelligence and to provide security elements to other intelligence agencies. 4 To undertake necessary motivational, welfare, developmental, cultural agencies. To train and build up a reserve of well motivated disciplined and trained local youth, both men and women for recruitment in SSB as also for a stay behind role.” It is evident from the relevant extract of Annexure A-1 that ITVs (Intensively Trained Volunteers) is a volunteer force and was paid pocket money amounting to Rs. 38/- per day for their participation in field exercises, refresher training camps and motivational publicity camps. It has come in the petition that the members of the organization are imparted training of 56 days. Mr. Sandeep Sharma has submitted that as and when the members of the organization are imparted training they are paid honorarium/daily allowance for the same. The petitioners have failed to substantiate their enrolment in the volunteer organization. There is no appointment letter whereby they were ever recruited/appointed as members of the volunteer force. In the present case, their appointment is only volunteer in nature. They are paid allowances as and when they undertake training. They are not entitled to any salary. The members of the Village Volunteer Force in Manipur were engaged for 20 days in a month. They were being paid Rs. 1500/- per month. The members of the Village Volunteer Force, Manipur were actively involved in the counter-insurgency operations in the State of Manipur. The petitioners are not employed by the organization. They are only imparted training for few days in a year. They are never called for insurgency operations as undertaken by the members of the Village Volunteer Force, Manipur. In the present case the members of the petitioners’ organization are only paid honorarium for undertaking 5 training. If the petitioners like the members of the Village Volunteer Force in Manipur had been appointed for a considerable period in a year and were involved in counter-insurgency operations, their case was comparable with them. There is a difference the manner in which the members of the Village Volunteer Force in Manipur are recruited, trained and carried out their duties in distinct areas. The State of Manipur was declared as a disturbed State in September, 1980. The members of the Village Volunteer Force in Manipur have quelled the rebellion and were successful in containing the insurgency operation carried by the Moitei extremists of PLA and Prepak. The Village Volunteer Force in Manipur had been providing valuable intelligence out put to the organization. The volunteers in Village Volunteer Force in Manipur were recruited through the respective Circle Organizers and were screened by the sub-area organizer and area organizer and finally by Divisional Organizer himself. Thereafter they were put to medical and physical fitness tests. The other motive behind raising the Village Volunteer Force in Manipur was to wean away the locals to join the insurgency. The members of the Village Volunteer Force in Manipur were associated with the SSB purely on temporary basis for 20 days in a month. In the present case, as noticed above, the petitioners were never deployed or employed for 20 days in a month. The members of the Village Volunteer Force in Manipur were entitled to ration money as was allowed to GC personnel as amended from time to time. They were also held entitled to money pension though on a very meager amount. The Gauhati High Court has passed the judgment on 8.9.2000 whereby the respondents were directed to absorb the members of the Village Volunteer Force as per the operative portion of the judgment. In compliance to the judgment dated 8.9.2000, 715 volunteers were absorbed in SSB as CT/GD with effect from 1.1.2004 6 and out of 799 volunteers, 66 volunteers with less than 7 years of service were found unfit for absorption in SSB and as such were given one time terminal gratuity. The members, who were absorbed in SSB their pay was fixed notionally in a regular pay scale with effect from 8.9.2000. It is thus evident that the members of the Village Volunteer Force in Manipur which was set up in the year 1966 by the Ministry of Human Affairs and was placed under the control of Chief Commissioner, Manipur for assisting in counter-insurgency operations constitute a separate class and this organization cannot be compared with the Intensively Trained Volunteers like the petitioners. There is no similarity between the manner in which the Village Volunteer Force in Manipur was raised in the year 1966 and the Intensively Trained Volunteers. The ITV has been primarily raised for imparting village level training for both men and women, covering a range of subjects ‘know your country, first aid, hygiene and sanitation, social evils and elementary rifle training etc. For National integrity camp trained villagers were sponsored for advance training where elementary training was imparted in national defence, intelligence collection, map reading, first aid, hygiene and sanitation to these few selected volunteers. Mr. Sandeep Sharma on the basis of the reply had also submitted that now the role of the SSB has changed and is performing Border Guarding duties on Indo Nepal and Indo Bhutan Border with effect from 15.1.2001. Mr. Sharma has further argued that the SSB has never held out any promise to the members of the ITVs to absorb them. The members of the Village Volunteer Force in Manipur were issued Arms while engaged in counter-insurgency operations. The petitioners have never been issued independent weapons and were not engaged in any counter-insurgency operations. 7 Though the Court has held that the petitioners cannot claim parity with the members of the Village Volunteer Force in Manipur, however, the Court cannot loose sight of the manner in which the petitioner are picked up. The basic ideal of imparting training to these volunteers is evident from note 2 of Annexure A-1. The petitioners were picked up from border areas to motivate, mobilize and prepare the people in the remote/border regions for security and defence of the country. Their roll was also to collect intelligence and to provide security elements to the intelligence agencies. The role of SSB was also to train and build up a reserve of well motivated disciplined and trained local youth, both men and women for recruitment in SSB as also for stay behind role. These boys and girls are trained for 56 days and they are paid Rs. 38/- per day. What emerges from the manner in which these boys and girls were trained is that they were trained for a specific job. These boys and girls are motivated and are capable to handle the weapons and collecting intelligence in border areas. The respondents on the basis of the availability of a well trained youth should have utilized their services in the organization in a more effective manner. It has come in the reply that few of the boys and girls are picked up for their recruitment if they fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the SSB. However, it appears that majority of them expecting to be enrolled in the organization had been undergoing training regularly, though on a meager sum, as noticed above. The Court is of the opinion that though it is primarily for the respondents to frame any scheme as has been done in the cases of the Village Volunteer Force in Manipur, a scheme for absorption of the petitioners is also required to be framed. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petitions are disposed with the following directions: 8 “the respondents may frame a scheme for the absorption of the petitioners in Armed Forces/ Para Military Forces, including Special Security Bureau taking into consideration the specialized training received by them for the last number of years. There shall be no order as to costs. 25.9. 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*