2026:HHC:38361 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 862 of 2021 Decided on: 08.09.2026 Ramesh Chand & others .… Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioners : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued in the interest of justice and the rule 15 of Annexure P-1 may kindly be quashed and set aside being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. ii. That the respondents may be directed by issuance of writ of mandamus to prepare some scheme/rule for the petitioners/home guards for their subsistence after their discharge/retirement after rendering such a long service including pension, gratuity etc.” 2. The petitioners before this Court were enrolled in the establishment of Home Guards in between the years 1979 to 1980 and in terms of the averments made in the writ petition they stood discharged in between the years 2019 and 2020. Their 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:38361 grievance is that at the time of their discharge they have not been given any financial benefit or gratuity or any kind of retirement benefit, and therefore, it is in this backdrop that the petitioners have approached this Court, praying for the reliefs enumerated hereinabove. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as also learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the pleadings and documents appended therewith, we are of the considered view that no relief as has been prayed for can be granted to the petitioners. 4. As far as relief No.2, prayed in the writ petition is concerned, in CWP No.6654 of 2023, titled Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Welfare Association Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which stands disposed of by us vide an order passed of the even date, we have already held that persons like the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of pension, gratuity, etc., as this issue already stands decided against them by way of O.A. No.1871 of 2004, titled Shri Ram Kumar Sharma and others Versus State of H.P. & others, decided by erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 27.05.2005, which order stood upheld by this Court in CWP No.588 of 2005, titled Ram Kumar Sharma & others Versus State of H.P. & others, along with connected matters, decided on 26.05.2008 and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.2759 of 2015, titled Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association Versus State of H.P. & Others. 5. In fact, we observe that the findings that have been returned by this 3 2026:HHC:38361 Court in CWP No.6654 of 2023, shall be construed to have been passed in the present petition also. 6. Now, coming to relief No.1, the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of Rule-15 of Annexure P-1 on the ground that the same is ultra vires in the Constitution of India. Annexure P-1, appended with the petition comprises of Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1968 as also Notification dated 08.02.1972, in terms whereof, Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Rules, 1971 were framed. 7. In terms of the averments made in the writ petition as also the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Rule-15 which provides that if a Home Guard dies during service, then his or her spouse is entitled to family pension, etc. is discriminatory and ultra vires the Constitution because a Home Guard who is alive as on the date of his discharge is not entitled for any of the said benefits as per Rule-15. 8. We are of the considered view that on the analogy that has been advanced by the petitioners, Rule-15 cannot be declared to be ultra vires in the Constitution of India. 9. Rule-15 of the Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Rules, 1971 reads as under:- “15. Compensation:- If any member of the Home Guards suffer any damage to his person or property while undergoing training or on duty, and he does not cause it by 4 2026:HHC:38361 his own negligence or willful Act or omission of the provisions of this Act and Rules or directions issued by superior Officer, he shall be paid compensation in the form of temporary allowances, disability pension, family pension and children allowances as the case may be, on the following terms and conditions:- (i) Temporary allowances:- If any Home Guards is indicated for work for a period of 3 days or more he shall be paid temporary disability allowances for the period of disablement @ of Rs. 30/- per month pay able at half monthly intervals as Rs. 15/-. (ii) Where an Injury sustained by Home Guard causes him serious and prolonged and permanent disablement, he shall be awarded compensation at the rates mentioned below. The amount depending on the percentage of disablement:- Percentage of Disability pension per mensem Disablement. 100 Rs. 30/- 90 Rs. 27/- 80 Rs. 24/- 70 Rs. 21/- 60 Rs. 18/- 50 Rs.15/- 20 to 40 Rs. 12/- 10 Rs. 10/- Provided that where the disablement is not more than 50% and injured Home Guard is not debarred from the means of his livelihood, the amount of disablement pension shall 5 2026:HHC:38361 be substituted by a lumpsum payment calculated at 70 time to the monthly payments specified in the foregoing schedule. iii) In case of death of Home Guard, as a result of injuries sustained while on duty on training, a family pension and children allowances shall be payable in accordance with the following:- (a) A family pension of Rs. 20/- per month to his legally wedded wife and in case the incumbent may have more than one legally wedded wife then this rate of provision of Rs. 20/- will be distributed equally and an allowances of Rs. 5/- per month to each of his legitimate child In case no family pension is being paid each child will get an allowance of Rs. 7.50 paise per month. (i) Provided that in case of a minor the children allowance will be paid to the legal wife or the guardian of the children. (ii) Provided further where a Home Guard entitled to the temporary or children allowance or disability pension is in receipt of an allowance or pension from public funds paid to him by reasons of same injuries or death, he shall be allowed to draw only the amount of the difference by which the allowance or pension from there public funds falls short of the allowances to which he was entitled as Home Guard under these Rules. 6 2026:HHC:38361 (b) For calculating the amount of injury, the opinion of the authorized Medical Officer shall be legal and final. The authorized Medical Officer in this case means any Civil Doctor in the service of the Government not below the rank of Class-l.” 10. This Rule provides that if any member of the Home Guard suffers any damage to his person or property while undergoing training or on duty and the same is not cause due to his own negligence or willful act of omission, then he shall be paid compensation in the form of temporary allowance, disability pension, family pension and children allowance, as the case may be. 11. The gist of this particular Rule is to provide compensation to a Home Guard or his family, as the case may be, in the mode and manner which is prescribed in Rule-15, if the Home Guard either loses his life or is disabled permanently or otherwise in the course of the performance of his duty, provided that the act is not on account of his own negligence or willful omission. 12. We, first of all fail to understand as to what locus the petitioners have got to challenge the vires of this particular Rule, which is a beneficial piece of legislation to come to the rescue of families of those Home Guard volunteers who lose their life in the course of their engagement, or to the rescue of those Home Guards who suffer from permanent or temporary disablement in the course of the performance of their duties. Ordinarily, an aggrieved person has a locus to assail the vires of a statutory provision or a Rule if that statutory provision or Rule comes 7 2026:HHC:38361 between the relief being prayed for by the petitioner and him. Here, Rule-15 does not impinges upon any right of the petitioners. 13. As observed hereinabove, Rule-15 is a beneficial piece of legislation which is for the benefit of families of the Home Guards who lose their life in the course of the performance of their duty, or the Home Guards who suffer from permanent or temporary disablement, etc. 14. As this particular Clause nowhere takes away any vested right of the petitioners, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners do not have any locus to assail the vires of this particular Rule. Otherwise also, as Rule-15 deals with a distinct class of Home Guards, i.e. those who unfortunately lose their life in the course of their duties or who suffer from disablement and can be termed to be a stand- alone Rule for this particular class, the Court does not find any unconstitutionality in the contents of this particular Rule, which comes to the rescue of the class mentioned therein so that succor is provided to the aggrieved family which may lose its member, or to the Home Guard himself who might be disabled in the course of the performance of his duties. In fact, if the prayer of the petitioners of holding Rule-15 (supra) as ultra vires is upheld by this Court, result thereof shall be that the class of Home Guards referred to therein will be deprived of the benefits which are mentioned in the said Rule, however, the petitioners will gain nothing. The striking down of the Rule will not result in the grant of the reliefs to the petitioners which have been prayed by them in this writ petition. 8 2026:HHC:38361 15. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, as this Court does not find that Rule-15 of the Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Rules, 1971 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and further as this Court does not find that relief No.2 as prayed for by the petitioners can be granted to them, the writ petition is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Yogesh Jaswal) Judge September 08, 2026 (Rishi)