Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rangdev Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 November, 2017

                                  1                    W.P. No.17925/15

                        W.P. No.17925/2015
Jabalpur, Dated : 21.11.2017
      Shri Brijesh Chandra Choube, learned counsel for the
petitioners.

      Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned G.A. for the respondents.

Heard finally with consent.

This order will govern the disposal of W.P. Nos.17925/15, 22088/15, 445/16, 1875/16, 11932/16, 11933/16 & 12660/16 as it is jointly submitted by counsel for both the parties that all these writ petitions involve the same issue on the identical fact situation.

For convenience the facts are taken from W.P. No.17925/2015.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 22.9.2015, whereby the petitioner's claim for grant of pension has been rejected.

The case of the petitioners is that they were working as Sainik/Hawaldar in Home Guard and had retired from service on completing the age of 60 years. Thereafter the petitioners had filed the representation claiming pension which has been rejected by the impugned order.

The respondents have filed their reply taking the stand that the petitioners who were working as Home Guard, were removed from service on attaining the age of superannuation 2 W.P. No.17925/15 and as per the applicable rules and circular the petitioners are not entitled for the pension or extraordinary pension.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of the Circular dated 14.8.1985 the petitioners are entitled to the pension.

As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no provision for grant of pension and that the extraordinary pension is payable under the Rules of 1963, but that too on the satisfaction of the condition in respect of the injuries covered by the rules and that the petitioner's case does not fall within the prescribed rules and circular.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that undisputedly the petitioners have retired as Sainik/Hawaldar from Home Guard. The petitioners prayer for grant of pension has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners are not the Government employees. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any provision to show that the petitioners are entitled for the pension.

So far as the issue of grant of extraordinary pension is concerned, the same is governed by the Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1963 (for short "the rules of 1963"). By the circular dared 11.6.1965 the rules of 1963 have been made applicable to the Home Guards/Special 3 W.P. No.17925/15 Police Officers in the event of their death or receiving injury in performance of duties. The circular of 11.6.1965 has been clarified by the Circular dated 14.8.1985 only to the limited extent that the calculation of the extraordinary pension will be done on the basis of the minimum applicable pay, hence, on the basis of the circular dated 14.8.1985 on which the petitioner is placing reliance upon, no new right in favour of the petitioner has been created.

The specific stand of respondents in their reply that the petitioners claims are not based on death or receiving injury in performance of duties, has not been controverted, therefore, on the basis of this undisputed position the case of the petitioners is not covered by the Rules of 1963 or by the circular mentioned above, hence, no error has been committed by the respondents in rejecting the claim by the impugned order dated 22.9.2015.

It has also been pointed out that the coordinate bench by order dated 11.5.2015 has rejected the identical writ petition being W.P. No.10604/2009(S) by holding as under:-

"Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Pramod Chourasia, Panel Lawyer for respondent State.

With consent the matter is finally heard. Petitioner a retired Constable, having retired on 10.9.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation from the services of Home Guards seeks direction for grant of pension and other retiral dues on the 4 W.P. No.17925/15 anvil of provisions contained under Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Extra Ordinary Pension Rules, 1963.

The respondent State of Madhya Pradesh has denied the claim. It is contended that being a member of voluntary organization petitioner was not a member of State Service as would entitle him for benefit under provisions of Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 or 1963 Rules. Further, placing reliance on the communication dated 29.12.2012, it is urged that the applicability of the provisions of Rules 1963 is only to the extent that when a Home Guard suffers causality during "Active Duty", his dependents are entitled for extra ordinary pension as per Department of Finance's circular No./1511/lh-vkj-/701@pkj vkj&11 fnukad 11@6@1965 No.@1511@Mh-443@552@85 dated 14@8@1985. Reliance is also placed on the decision by Division Bench of this Court in Punpratap Singh and another v. State of M.P. And others [2000 (4) MPHT 398].

It has been held in Pun Pratap Singh (Supra) that "4.... it is abundantly clear from the Preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons, quoted above, that Home Guards is a body of volunteers to supplement the police force and to assist in any general measure of public welfare in the State. The need to create this body was that ordinary police force was inadequate to deal effectively with the forces of disorder in the absence of cooperation from the members of the public in emergencies. It is, in substance, purely a voluntary force to supplement the ordinary police in times of emergency for maintaining law and order, protection of person and property of citizens and public safety."

In this regard reliance is also placed on the decision rendered in Grah Rakshak Homeguard Welfare Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh : 2015 AIR SCW 2088 to bring home the submission that the petitioner being not a 5 W.P. No.17925/15 member of State Service but was a member of voluntary organization is not at par with State Government Servant and is, therefore, not entitled for pensionary benefits under Rules, 1976.

No material document has been commended at by the petitioner to establish that the Home Guard Establishment has been held to be an extended department/force of the State Government as would lead to infer the Constable Home Guard to be a member of State Service.

Having thus considered, no case is made out for grant of pension. Consequently petition fails and is dismissed. No costs."

Having regard to the aforesaid and considering the fact that the petitioners have failed to point out any right to receive the pension or extraordinary pension, I am of the opinion that no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order.

The writ petitions are found to be devoid of any merit, which are accordingly dismissed.

Signed order be kept in the file of W.P. No.17925/2015 and a copy thereof be placed in the file of connected W.P. Nos. 22088/15, 445/16, 1875/16, 11932/16, 11933/16 & 12660/16.

C.C. as per rules.

(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge trilok/-