High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2281/2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN JUDGMENT AND ORDR(ORAL) Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattachayya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Medhi and Mr.S.R. Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. R. Borah, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to frame a scheme for pen sion in respect of the petitioners and for other connected reliefs. 3. Case of the petitioners is that they were recruited as members of Sasas tra Seema Bal (SSB) as Intensive Trained Volunteers (ITV) and Women Advanced Tra ining School ( WATS) Volunteers. SSB is under the Home Ministry, Government of I ndia and was formed during the time of the Chinese aggression in the year 1962. The objective of the SSB is to have constant monitoring and intelligence gathe ring in border areas by involving civilians who are trained for the purpose. Petitioners have stated that they had to undergo rigorous training while perform ing duty in SSB. They were taken to Haflong in the then NC Hills district and o ther places to undergo such training. They were also trained in armed combat. Th ose in the WATS, they were trained at Bagribari in the district of Goalpara and Debendranagar in the district of Sonitpur. Petitioners had also undergone train ing in motivational camps held under the supervision of the Indian Army and CRP F at regular intervals. Services of the petitioners, apart from their primary d uty of vigilance and mobilization, were also used for various other purposes, such as construction of roads, dams, dykes etc. so as to enable the petitioner s to get themselves acquainted with the villagers. Petitioners also attended a n umber of refresher courses. Petitioners were paid daily wages ranging from Rs.30 /- to Rs.50/-. Their services were utilized for at least 45 days every three mon ths. They were also given uniform. 4. Though there is no specific age limit for retirement of ITV and WATS vol unteers, their services are utilized till they are assessed as physically fit. Those who are assessed as physically not fit, their services are discontinued . 5. Petitioners have complained that respondents have not framed any scheme for payment of retirement benefits like pension, provident fund, gratuity etc. They have pointed out an example where similarly placed volunteers in the Sta te of Manipur are paid pension @ 2,500/- per month. Petitioners had submitted a memorandum with a Charter of Demand before t 6. he Director General, SSB seeking better amenities. No decision was taken on such representation submitted by the petitioners. 7. e relief as indicated above. Aggrieved, petitioners have filed the instant writ petition seeking th Respondents have filed counter affidavit. It is stated that SSB was init 8. ially a population based organization and consequently, officers and staff of S SB used to visit the population to spot out talented persons, who in turn, could guide and impart training voluntarily to the villagers. Selected persons were s ent to training institute of SSB to undergo advance training courses covering va rious topics on security, natural calamity etc. as well as different schemes of the Government on daily payment basis as per Government approved rates. It is the stand of the respondents that services of the petitioners were completely voluntary at their free will. With the change of role of SSB from (cid:28)stay behind (cid:29) to (cid:28)border guarding duties, (cid:29) the requirement of training of the ITVs and WAT S were not felt necessary any further and, therefore, training of ITVs/WATS was closed. Petitioners were paid diet charges and pocket allowances during the e xercises and refresher training programmers since the petitioners were volunteer s and their participation in SSB activities were completely and purely on volu ntary basis. As SSB volunteers it was the duty of the petitioners to motivate a nd mobilize the people living in remote parts of the country, promoting natural integration and security consciousness in border areas and to organize and to p repare people to resist enemy and ’stay behind’ role during external aggression and logistics and other support to the armed forces. Volunteers who were impar ted training were paid pocket money and diet charge when SSB training were impa rted to them. Denying the allegation of the petitioners, it is stated that eligi ble volunteers got themselves recruited in defence forces and other central par amilitary forces. Many welfare schemes having been initiated. Eligible volunt eers are also enrolled in SSB after conducting recruitment test. Regarding the benefits granted to similarly situated volunteers in Manipur, it is stated that Village Volunteers Force (VVF) in Manipur got the same training as the petitio ners but they were assigned different works. While they were employed as armed f orce, petitioners were purely volunteers. VVF of Manipur was raised and establi shed to fight insurgency in Manipur. Those VVF volunteers were on regular pa y roll of the Government. Therefore, the case of VVF volunteers is not identi cal to the case of the petitioners. 9.
Decision
Petitioners in their reply affidavit have reiterated the statements made in the writ petition and have further contended that respondents have failed to address the core demand relating to payment of pension to the petitioners in l ieu of services rendered as ITV and WATS volunteers and formulation of any sch eme of post retirement benefits. VVF volunteers of Manipur have been regularize d as per direction of this Hon’ble Court. Petitioners contend that nature of du ty performed by them is similar to that of VVF volunteers in the State of Manip ur. 10. Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel submits that it is the b ounden duty of the State to look after the welfare of the citizens , particular ly those whose services were utilized for the national cause. He submits that it cannot be the approach of the State to utilize the service of persons whil e whey were able and physically fit and then to discard them on an assessment t hat they would no longer be useful to the organization. State has a duty to en sure that those persons who play a pivotal role in protecting the borders o f the country and make themselves available in the service of organizations suc h as SSB, should be looked after in the long run. He, therefore, prays for a po sitive intervention by this Court to ensure that there is at least some acknowle dgement of the service rendered by the petitioners and that some benefits are extended to them to maintain themselves and their family members. 11. Mrs. Borah, on the other hand submits that considering the voluntary nat ure of the services rendered by the petitioners, prayer made by the petitioners in the writ petition is not legally tenable. There is difference between the service rendered by the petitioners and the service rendered by VVF volunteers i n the State of Manipur, in whose case a separate scheme has been framed. 12. Submissions made have been considered. 13. It is no doubt true that the relief sought for by the petitioners would fall within the realm of policy making by the State and Court would ordinarily not intervene in such a matter. 14. Notwithstanding the above, it is seen that even in the case of volunteer s in SSB organization in the State of Manipur, this Court had passed certain dir ections on 8.9.2000 in Civil Rule No.202/1998. Directions were to regularize vo lunteers who had already put in service for 7 years and above as on 1.7.2000 by absorbing them in various categories in the SSB organization subject to their e ligibility and suitability. When this direction was challenged in Writ Appeal No .142/2001, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.1.2001 upheld the or der of the Single Bench with the modification that regularization would come int o effect from 8.9.2000 i.e. the date of judgment instead of 1.7.2000. The Apex Court also affirmed the said judgment. 15. Though the nature of duty assigned to VVF in the State of Manipur may no t be identical to the nature of duty performed by the petitioners, yet the fact remains that both are volunteers under the SSB organization and their services were utilized for the greater national cause. 16. When a writ petition was moved before the Calcutta High Court by persons similarly placed like the petitioners seeking parity with VVF volunteers of Ma nipur, the Calcutta High Court by order dated 9.8.2006 in W.P. 13062(W) of 2006 disposed of the writ petition giving an opportunity to those petitioners to mov e the appropriate Government as the reliefs sought for was construed to be withi n the domain of policy making. It was, however, made clear that if the appropria te Government was moved, the claim should be considered in accordance with law. 17. Similar writ petition came to be filed in the High Court of Himachal Pra desh, Shimla being CWP Nos.469/2007, 470/2007 and 506 of 2007. The High Court o f Himachal Pradesh vide the common judgment and order dated 25.9.2008 after ob serving the nature of duty performed by the ITVs and WATVs under the SSB orga nization and comparing them with the nature of duty performed by VVF in Manip ur, directed the State to frame a scheme for absorption of the petitioners in A rmed Forces/Para Military Forces including Special Security Bureau, taking into consideration the specialized training received by them. In the circumstances of the case, the prayer made by the petitioners a 18. ppears to be a reasonable one. The Court is of the view that above prayer requir es a sympathetic consideration of the authorities. For that purpose, respondent s may have to prepare a scheme on similar lines as directed by the Himachal P radesh High Court for absorption of the petitioners and also for payment of p ension or for providing some financial assistance to those ITVs and WATS who se services were subsequently discontinued or would be discontinued by SSB on a ccount of physical ground considering the past service rendered by them. 19. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents may consider framing of a scheme for pension or for any other fin ancial benefit for ITVs and WATS volunteers whose services are discontinued on physical ground. 20. It is hoped and expected that respondents shall examine the matter gi ving due consideration to the grievance of the petitioners and take a consciou s decision within a period of six(6) months from the date of receipt of a certif ied copy of this order. 21. 22. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. Parties to bear their own cost.