 of the UP Home Guards Act, 1963.){kind=link}
ILNS: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the petition filed by Home Guards, seeking reinstatement into services by the State of Uttar Pradesh, while noting down the inordinate delay of 400 days in filing of appeal without a sufficient explanation. (Prem Pal Singh and another Versus State of UP & Others)
The petitioners challenged the Allahabad High Court Judgement, which had dismissed their appeal for reinstatement into services as Home Guards in the state.
The Bench of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari dismissed the civil writ petition on grounds of inordinate delay of more than 400 days. Justice Vineet asked the Counsel of the petitioner that when did he raise the grievance for the first time, to which he replied that he moved representation in 2016, around nine years after removal from service as Home guard.
The petitioner said the state government did not follow the procedure laid down, while disengaging him from service under Section 13(5) of the UP Home Guards Act, 1963.
As per the contention of the petitioner, he worked lastly on February 26, 2007. Thereafter, he was not engaged. Also, the duration of six years expired in 2013. It was observed both by the Division Bench and the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court that the petitioner moved application on June 15, 2016, after three years post expiry of six years prior to Government Order dated December 2, 2016.
The appellant challenged the dismissal order dated November 20, 2018 before this apex court, passed by the Allahabad High Court, wherein the Division Bench affirmed the order of the Single Judge, and held, “In the event, any other person has been engaged after 2nd of December, 2016 and after the expiry of six years of his disengagement, it shall be open to the appellant to move before the authority concerned for any appropriate consideration.”
The High Court observed, “Government Order would apply in all such cases with effect from December 2, 2016, but the fact remains that the petitioner remained unengaged and has not been re-engaged till date. The Government Order, therefore, has come into force and now, it cannot be ignored. In such circumstances, the said claim of the appellant cannot be said to be surviving, and therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be incorrect.”
The petitioner made reliance upon the Judgement of Sanjay Kumar and Raj Kumar in case of , Workmen Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd 2017 SC Serv R 799, wherein Home Guards were re-appointed, even after issuing of Government Order.
Read Also: Punjab and Haryana High Court asked states, UT to consider home delivery of oxygen cylinders
The Single Judge declined relief to the appellant on the ground that under the Government Order dated December 2, 2016, the re-engagement request as a Home Guard cannot be considered, if it is after six years from the date of disengagement