JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. PK Dhar along with Mr. RG Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. H Deb, learned ASG along with Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharji and Mr. GS Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. None appears for the respondent No.6 despite due notice from this court. By the order dated 02.08.2017 the names of respondent No. 5 [All North East State S.S.B. Trained ITVs/WATs Welfare Association (ANESIWAWA), Head Office Tezpur, Assam, represented by its General Secretary] and the respondent No. 7 [The Chairman, All India S.S.B. Volunteers Welfare Society, New Delhi, Camp-Jantar Mantar] have been deleted. 2. By the order dated 02.08.2017 the names of respondent No. 5 [All North East State S.S.B. Trained ITVs/WATs Welfare Association (ANESIWAWA), Head Office Tezpur, Assam, represented by its General Secretary] and the respondent No. 7 [The Chairman, All India S.S.B. Volunteers Welfare Society, New Delhi, Camp-Jantar Mantar] have been deleted. 2. All these petitions being WP(C) 226 of 2017 [Smt. Aruna Acharji (Bhattacharji) vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 227 of 2017 [Sri Samir Sen vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 228 of 2017 [Sri Bhabatosh Majumder vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 229 of 2017 [Sri Samlal Das vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 234 of 2017 [Smt. Minati Ghosh (Chakraborty) vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 235 of 2017 [Sri Biplab Ghosh vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 236 of 2017 [Sri Dulal Chandra Saha vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 237 of 2017 [Smt. Manju Rani Ghosh vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 238 of 2017 [Sri Dhirendra Chandra Das vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 257 of 2017 [Sri Tapan Debnath vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 258 of 2017 [Sri Mrabay Mog (Debbarma) vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 259 of 2017 [Sri Tarapada Roy vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 260 of 2017 [Smt. Shipti Debnath vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 261 of 2017 [Smt. Bani Biswas (Mallik) vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 262 of 2017 [Smt. Niyati Bhowmik vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 263 of 2017 [Sri Sayan Sarkar vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 264 of 2017 [Sri Swapan Deb vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 265 of 2017 [Sri Rupam Karmakar vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 295 of 2017 [Sri Indra Kumar Das vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 296 of 2017 [Sri Satya Ranjan Das vs. The Union of India and others], WP(C) 297 of 2017 [Sri Bishnu Das vs. The Union of India and others] and WP(C) 298 of 2017 [Sri Mihir Ranjan Dhar vs. The Union of India and others] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the reliefs as prayed are identical being set up in identical conspectus of fact. 3. 3. By means of this writ petitions, the petitioners have urged this court for directing the respondents No. 1,2 and 3 to enlist the name of the petitioners in the list of the volunteers or in the penal I of the volunteers of ITVs/WATs under the Sashastra Seema Bal (for short, hereinafter referred to as the SSB) and further to refer their names to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura for utilization of their services in terms of the scheme of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. In addition, they have urged this court for directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to recognize the petitioners as the Volunteers of ITVs/WATs under the SSB for all purposes and also to include the name of the petitioners in the list of such volunteers as prepared by the Directorate of SSB. 4. Mr. PK Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that all the petitioners are qualified and medically fit to serve as the Volunteers of the SSB. They are also registered with the Employment Exchanges. The Special Security Bureau has been converted to Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). Earlier Special Security Bureau was assigned with “Stay Behind Roll” under the Administrative Control of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The said organization used to impart intensive training to the volunteers of bordering villages for motivating and mobilizing people living in the remote parts of the country for security consciousness etc. Sometimes, they were issued the certificate as the volunteers. They were imparted trainings periodically to enhance their capacity in respect of their duties. All the petitioners got training under the SSB over the period of time, but they were not issued with any certificate in this regard. Some of the volunteers under the SSB were trained on different times and were supplied with the dress and other valuable articles from the SSB HQ, Tripura circle, Salbagan. 5. The respondent No.3, the Chairman of Board No.5, Sector HQ, S.S.B., Kokrajhar, B.T.A.D., Assam issued the notification under No.SHQ-KJR/ITVs-WATs/Verification/TRA/15(6-7), dated 25.04.2015 which was published in ‘Dainik Sambad’ dated 28.04.2015 for identification and verification of the volunteers circle-wise and sub area-wise in Tripura. In response to the said notification dated 25.04.2015, the petitioners physically appeared before the said Board and submitted all necessary papers for verification and identification so that the petitioners may be recognized as Volunteer under the SSB. In response to the said notification dated 25.04.2015, the petitioners physically appeared before the said Board and submitted all necessary papers for verification and identification so that the petitioners may be recognized as Volunteer under the SSB. 6. The Volunteers Associations also took some initiative so that the petitioners can be verified and enrolled as the volunteer circle-wise. Later on, the Home Department, Government of India issued a letter under D.O. No. A-12011/16/SSB/Pers-III, dated 22.09.2016 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura. For purpose of reference, the text of the said letter is extracted hereunder: Dear Jash Pal, The Special Security Bureau (now Sashastra Seema Bal) was assigned “Stay Behind Role” prior to its coming under the administrative control of MHA in January, 2001. The organization used to impart intensive training to the volunteers of bordering villages for motivating and mobilizing people living in the remote parts of the country, promoting National Integration and security consciousness in order areas and to organize and prepare the border population to resist the enemy. Selected Intensive Trained Volunteers (ITVs) and Women Advance Training School (WATS) Volunteers, who underwent advance training for 42 days, were associated in SSB activities as Volunteers. After the change of the role of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) as a Border Guarding Force in 2001, the association of such Volunteers has since discontinued. 2. These Volunteers are a valuable and trained resource who can be deployed in critical situations; they can, for instance, be deployed immediately in law & order situations as Home Guards and Civil Defence Volunteers. The State Government need not spend its resources on training them as they are already well trained. 3. There are 611 such volunteers in the State of Tripura. The DG, SSB has been asked to send the list/details of these Volunteers to the State Government. 4. In view of the above, the Government of Tripura is required to utilize the services of the above mentioned well trained volunteers of ITVS/WATS. A line of confirmation regarding the action taken in the matter may kindly be intimated to this Ministry as early as possible. Regards. Yours sincerely, Sd/ Illegible (Rajiv Mehrishi) Dr. Yashpal Singh 7. 4. In view of the above, the Government of Tripura is required to utilize the services of the above mentioned well trained volunteers of ITVS/WATS. A line of confirmation regarding the action taken in the matter may kindly be intimated to this Ministry as early as possible. Regards. Yours sincerely, Sd/ Illegible (Rajiv Mehrishi) Dr. Yashpal Singh 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that their names were not recommended and their name did not find place in the list forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura, even though they have acted as volunteers under the SSB. Being aggrieved, they have approached this court for directing the respondents in the manner, as stated above. 8. In reply, the respondents have stated that the records of volunteers which were being maintained in erstwhile roll of the SSB prior to January, 2001 was quite old containing the names of all volunteers who underwent Advance Training for 42 & 30 days out of which some were wasted out by way of their enrollment in CAPFs/SSB and other Civil Departments, because the undergoing of Advance Training was purely voluntary in nature. These volunteers were pressurizing the MHA/SSB from time to time by way of approaching various dignitaries for their absorption and extending pensionary benefits. In this regard, it is submitted that due to non-availability of exact number of actual volunteers at present, it was decided to draw the authenticated list of actual volunteers, which was not feasible without carrying out physical verification at this spot. Accordingly, State-wise Boards were detailed/constituted during the year 2015 for carrying out the physical verification of actual male and female volunteers in order to draw the authenticated list. It has been further submitted that the name of the petitioners did not match with the official records of the SSB causing thereby, their names could not be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State of Tripura, being the respondent No. 4 herein. The names of only those male and female volunteers have been sent to the State Government whose names were matched/verified with the records of the SSB. 9. In response to the said reply, the petitioners have filed their rejoinder, but could not demonstrate that the decision of the respondents No. 1,2 and 3 was not informed, by producing the relevant records. 10. 9. In response to the said reply, the petitioners have filed their rejoinder, but could not demonstrate that the decision of the respondents No. 1,2 and 3 was not informed, by producing the relevant records. 10. Having regard to that aspects of the matter, this court is of the view that all these writ petitions can be disposed of with the following directions- The petitioners who are not large in number, shall approach the respondent No. 2 with all relevant records within a period of 3(three) months from today for verification of their identity as the volunteers of the SSB. If the respondent No.2 is satisfied regarding their identity as the volunteers having the training of 30/42 days in terms of their policy, the petitioners shall be recommended to the respondent No.4 on the same terms of the letter dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition). The petitioners, if recommended, shall be entitled to all the benefits that will be available to the person who have already been recommended to the respondent No.4. For purpose of verification, the respondent No. 2 may also constitute a special board or assign such duties to any other suitable officer. 11. Hence, all these writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.