( 2025:HHC:34620 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2692/2023 Decided on: 14.10.2025 Baldev Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J The present writ petition is against the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the respondents rejecting petitioner’s representation for re-enrollment as Home Guard. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. The case The petitioner was enrolled as Home Guard on 21.10.1991. It is his case that he served the organization diligently upto 17.01.2007 and afterwards he was put in “reserve force” without any notice and without following the rules. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:34620 ) 3(i) The petitioner alongwith others preferred Devender Kumar and others versus State of H.P.2 seeking re-enrollment as Home Guard. During hearing of said petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that issue raised in the writ petition was covered by Inder Singh versus State of H.P.3. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Devender Kumar2 was disposed of on 29.06.2022 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners therein including the present petitioner in light of Inder Singh3. At this juncture, it will be relevant to extract the substantive observations made in Inder Singh3 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 mis-conducting, 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 P-2, 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 2 CWP No.4165 of 2022 decided on 29.06.2022 3 CWP No.3628 of 2020 decided on 5.1.2021 3 ( 2025:HHC:34620 ) 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 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.” 3(ii) Pursuant to the directions issued in Devender Kumar2, the respondents considered the representation of the petitioner and vide office communication dated 13.09.2022 (annexure P-5) rejected the same primarily on the ground that petitioner had crossed the age of 50 years on the date of filing of Devender Kumar2, petitioner’s date of birth being 12.05.1971. Feeling aggrieved against the rejection of his representation, petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following substantial reliefs:- “i. That the impugned order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the case of the petitioner for re-enrollment as Home Guard has been denied contained in Annexure P-6 may kindly be quashed and set- aside. ii. That the respondents may kindly be ordered to re- enroll the petitioner as Home Guard as per Section 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Home guards Act, 1968.” 4. Consideration. 4(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily focused upon the Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1968 as amended 4 ( 2025:HHC:34620 ) by Act No. 21 of 2002 in terms whereof Section 5 of the Act was amended as under:- “5. Enrollment of volunteers of Home Guards- (1) the Commandant General or the Commandant, as the case may be, may enrol, with the prior approval of the Government, such number of persons, who are fit and willing to serve, as may be determined by it, as volunteers of the Home Guards to any office of command under his immediate control. (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (3) A (volunteer) of the Home guards shall, on (enrollment), make a declration in form I and receive a certificate of ( enrollment) in form II under the seal and singatures of such officer as may be prescribed. (4) Subject to rules made in this behalf, a volunteer of Home Guards shall serve the Home Guards Organization for a minimum period of three years and may continue as such till attaining the age of 58 years and thereafter serve in the reserve force till attaining the age of 60 years.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was bound to continue in service at least till the age of 58 years in view of amended Section 5 (4) of Himachal Pradesh Home Guard Act. The respondents’ categoric defence is that not only the petitioner had crossed the age of 50 years on the date of institution of Devender Kumar2 and in view of said decision could not have been re-enrolled but also in view of the fact that the petitioner had been discharged from service w.e.f. 27.04.2006. In view of the pleadings of the parties, following order was passed in the matter on 05.09.2025:- 5 ( 2025:HHC:34620 ) “There seems to be some dispute on facts. According to the petitioner, he was enrolled as Home Guard on 21.10.1991 and kept in Reserved Force on 17.01.2007, whereas, Annexure P-5, dated 13.09.2022, states that petitioner was terminated on 17.01.2007. As against this, reply filed by the respondents No.1 to 3 pleads that petitioner was put in Reserved Force w.e.f. 04.11.1997. There is no whisper in the reply about termination of the petitioner. Let learned Additional Advocate General clarify this aspect on the next date of hearing. List on 19.09.2025.” 4(ii) Pursuant thereto, respondents placed on record instructions dated 11.09.2024 alongwith compendium of documents. During hearing of the case today, the respondents also produced the record. The position that emerges is:- i) The petitioner was engaged in Home Guard Organization as volunteer on 21.10.1991.In terms of Section 5 of the Act (unamended) a member of the Home Guard was required to serve the organization for the minimum period of three years. ii) After completion of the aforesaid period, the petitioner was kept in reserve w.e.f. 20.10.1994. He was re-enrolled for a period of three years w.e.f. 05.11.1994. Upon completion of said period, the petitioner was again kept in reserve w.e.f. 04.11.1997. iii) The petitioner was re-enrolled afresh under a new number for the tenure 14.12.1998 to 13.12.2001. His tenure was further extended upto 16.12.2003. iv) Under the order passed on 03.01.2004, petitioner’s services were extended from 17.12.2003 till his attaining the age of 58 years. However, during this period, pursuant to the order passed by Commandment, 11th Battalion, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (respondent No.3) on 28.04.2006, the petitioner was discharged from the organization on 27.04.2006. 6 ( 2025:HHC:34620 ) In terms of the record produced today which is also appended alongwith office instructions, the petitioner’s discharge was on account of his continued absentism and other reasons pertaining to not discharging the duties appropriately. It is not the case of the petitioner that he filed any representation against his discharge from services w.e.f. 27.4.2006. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he was unaware about his having been discharged from service. It is not his case that he ever represented to the respondents against his discharge from services w.e.f. 27.04.2006. It is also not his case that he ever took any legal recourse against his discharge ordered by the respondents w.e.f. 27.04.2006. The petitioner having accepted his discharge from service cannot be permitted to rake up a stale issue. His prayer for re-enrollment in the respondent organization cannot be accepted. Present petition therefore lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 14th October, 2025(yogesh)