Narayan Singh v. State of H.P & Ors.

Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocte General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J This writ petition mainly questions an order dated

29.08.2023 whereby respondents have discharged the petitioner as a Home Guard volunteer after following the due process of law.

2. 2(i) Facts Petitioner instituted Narayan Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 seeking direction to the respondents to re-enroll him as Home Guard volunteer. During course of hearing of the said petition, it was stated for the petitioner that the issue raised in the petition was covered by the decision in Inder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2CWP No. 4101/2022 alongwith connected matter decided on 19.09.2022 3CWP No. 3628/2020 decided on 05.01.2021 2 ( 2025:HHC:6337 Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the decision in Inder Singh’s case3. 2(ii) Petitioner instituted Narayan Singh Vs. Dushyant Negi4 seeking implementation of the afore-decision. The petition was disposed of on 15.03.2023 in view of the assurance given by learned Additional Advocate General that needful in terms of the judgment in question would be carried out within two weeks. This assurance was followed by issuance of an office order on 24.04.2023, whereunder the respondents re-enrolled the petitioner as Home Guard volunteer. 2(iii) On 07.07.2023, the respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner indicating therein that on verification of the record, it was found the petitioner could not have been re-enrolled as Home Guard volunteer. He was called upon to furnish his explanation. Petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice. The respondents considered the reply and vide office order dated

29.08.2023 (Annexure P-11) discharged him from Home Guard Organization as he was erroneously re-enrolled. 2(iv) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition for the grant of following substantive relief:- “That the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure P-11) may kindly be quashed and set aside with further directions to the respondents to re-enroll the petitioner in active home guard 4COPC No. 6/2023 decided on 15.03.2023 3 ( 2025:HHC:6337 service from the year 2017 when other similar situated persons has been enrolled alongwith all consequential benefits alongwith interest.”

3. Having heard both sides and on consideration of the case file, I am not inclined to allow this writ petition. This is for the following reasons:- 3(i) It has come in the reply and has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was enrolled as Home Guard Volunteer in the 7th Home Guards Battalion, Kullu in the year 1996. Respondents discharged him from Home Guard Organization on 13.08.1999 (Annexure R-1) for his failure to respond to call up notices for bonafide duty and training, without any reasonable cause. 3(ii) Respondents have also indicated in the reply that the petitioner was never put in the ‘reserve list’ as he had been discharged in the year 1999 from the Home Guard Organization. Petitioner’s discharge was in accordance with Section 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Act 1968, which reads as under:- “6. Power to discharge a volunteer of Home Guards.- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4) of section 5, the Commandant General or the Commandant shall have the authority to discharge any volunteer of the Home Guards at any time subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, if, in his opinion, the services of such volunteer are no longer required.” 4 ( 2025:HHC:6337 3(iii) Petitioner accepted the order that discharged him. Admittedly, he had not taken any legal recourse against his discharge from Home Guard Organization in the year 1999. It was only on 24.06.2022, the petitioner instituted Narayan Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 seeking his re-enrollment. Prayer for re-enrollment was made on the strength of decision rendered in Inder Singh’s3 case. Relevant portion from Inder Singh’s3 decision reads as under:- “2. Be that as it may, the effects of all the afore may, become undone, rather only for ensuring that since, the writ petitioner, is otherwise, not, declared, in the reply, on affidavit, sworn by the respondent, to be unfit, for performing the apposite duties, nor, is declared therein, to, during the tenure, of, his service as a volunteer in the Home Guards, qua his not performing his duties, with lack of efficiency, and, or his misconducting, himself, (i) thereupons, besides when the perusal, of, Annexure P-2, discloses that the persons aspiring to be re-enlisted as volunteer(s) in the Home Guards, are not, to cross the prescribed therein age bar of 50 years, (ii) thereupon, when it is stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the writ petitioner has not crossed the apposite age bar, hence, the respondents concerned, are, directed to, subject, to his also meteing compliance with Rule 3, of Annexure P2, inasmuch as, his being (a) not less than 18 years and not more than 50 years of age, (b) is of good moral character; (c) is physically fit to undergo ardous out-door duties and has been medically examined and found to be of normal health; (d) is at least literate in Hindi; (e) is not wholly engaged in any course of study in any educational institution and has an employment or profession; (f) is not a member of the Territorial Army; (g) takes an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India and to the Government of Himachal 5 ( 2025:HHC:6337 Pradesh as laid down in the form of pledge appended to these rules, hence proceed to consider the request of the respondent, for, his reenrollment, as a volunteer in the Home Guards.” Narayan Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 instituted by the petitioner was disposed of on 19.09.2022 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the decision in Inder Singh’s3 case. This was so ordered in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner’s case was covered by the decision rendered in Inder Singh’s3 case. 3(iv) Respondents though re-enrolled the petitioner on

24.04.2023, but the subsequent orders passed by them reveal that petitioner’s re-enrollment/re-enlisting was not in-conformity with the provisions of the applicable Act & the Rules and was also against the factual position of the case. Petitioner had been discharged from Home Guard Organization on 30.08.1999 on the ground of his failure to respond to call up notices for bonafide duty and training, without any reasonable cause, therefore, he could not have been re-enrolled in the organization in view of the applicable provisions of the Act. Further more, in terms of following Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Home Guard Rules 1971, petitioner had admittedly crossed the maximum prescribed age of 50 years on the date of filing of Narayan Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 6 ( 2025:HHC:6337 “3. A person shall be eligible for appointment to the Home Guards Organization if he/she fulfills the following requirements. (a) Is not less than 18 years and not more than 50 years or age………...” There is no dispute to the above factual aspects by the petitioner. 3(v) Petitioner’s contention of his having been discriminated by the respondents with similarly situated person is also not established from the record. Respondents have justifiably pleaded in their reply that petitioner cannot seek parity with Sh/Sh. Laik Ram & Ramesh Chand, whose names had been kept in the ‘reserve list’. Petitioner’s name cannot figure in ‘reserve list’ as he was discharged from organization in the year 1999. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder refuting the factual submissions made in the reply.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, no case for interference with impugned office order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure P-11) is made out. The present petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 18th March 2025(rohit) Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge