( 2023:HHC:7275-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 322/2023 Decided on: 24.02.2025 Nanak Chand …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Respondent No.3 rejected the case of the petitioner for re-enrollment in Home Guard Organization, primarily on the ground that he had crossed the age bar of 50 years. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the impugned rejection order and seeking the relief of his re-enlistment/re-enrollment. 3. Petitioner was enrolled as Home Guard under Home Guards 6th Battalion Mandi, Himachal Pradesh on 22.12.1991. He 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2023:HHC:7275-DB ) was discharged on 01.06.2001. Petitioner has alleged that he was discharged w.e.f. 01.06.2001 without issuing any show cause notice and without holding any inquiry, which is in violation of the applicable rules. However, the fact remains that the petitioner admittedly accepted his discharge and did not assail the action of the respondents in any Court of law. 4. The Civil Writ Petition bearing No.4875/2022 was instituted by the petitioner seeking his re-enrollment on the strength of the judgment rendered in Inder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 The said writ petition was decided on 21.07.2022 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the decision rendered in Inder Singh’s case2. Pursuant to the direction, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 30.12.2022 declined to re-enroll the petitioner on the ground that he had already crossed the age limit of 50 years by the time of filing of the writ petition on 19.07.2022. 5. The above facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Rules 1971 prescribe certain conditions for appointment of Home Guards which include (i) a person should not be less than 18 years and not more than 50 years of age and (ii) should also bear good moral character. The Rules further provide the procedure for 2CWP No. 3628/2020 decided on 05.01.2021 3 ( 2023:HHC:7275-DB ) furnishing certificates of good moral character. This has also been observed in Inder Singh’s judgment2, relevant para of which 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 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 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 re-enrollment, as a volunteer in the Home Guards.” In view of admitted position that the petitioner had crossed the maximum age bar of 50 years by the time of filing writ 4 ( 2023:HHC:7275-DB ) petition bearing CWP No.4875/2022, respondents’ refusal to re-enlist him, does not require any interference. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had attained the age of 50 years in the year 2017, but he had served a demand notice upon the respondents under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the month of October 2016. If that be so, it was for the petitioner to pursue his grievance before the appropriate forum at the relevant time, which the petitioner failed to do. He preferred CWP No.4875/2022 before this Court on 19.07.2022, which was disposed of on 21.07.2022 in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that his case was covered by the decision rendered in Inder Singh’s case2. Respondents accordingly considered petitioner’s case & rejected it as the petitioner had long crossed the maximum age limit fixed under the applicable R&P Rules for re- enrollment. Taking into consideration the decision in Inder Singh’s case2, where the age bar of 50 years has been mentioned as one of the conditions for re-enrollment and the petitioner having crossed the prescribed maximum age limit, in the year 2017, respondents were justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner. Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. 5 ( 2023:HHC:7275-DB ) Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th February, 2025(rohit)