Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1351 (PAT)

Raghubir Prasad v. State of Bihar

2023-12-08

RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

body2023
Rajesh Kumar Verma, J. – Heard Mr. Binodanand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kinkar Kumar, learned standing counsel no. 9 assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Upadhyaya, learned AC to SC 9. 2. This writ petition has been heard in detail at the stage of admission itself and is being disposed of finally with consent of the parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in service till the age of 60 years and pay all the consequential benefits as they are entitled in accordance with law. 4. The petitioners were enrolled as Home Guard on different dates which are mentioned as follows: – S.No. Petitioners Date of Enrolment 1 Raghubir Prasad 07.09.1976 2 Raj Narayan Tiwari 07.09.1976 3 Yogendra Kumar Pandey 07.09.1976 4 Manager Mishra 07.09.1976 5 Gena Harijan 07.09.1976 6 Byas Chaudhary 21.11.1976 7 Lutawan Rawat 02.01.1977 8 Phulmaan Miyan 02.01.1977 9 Sudama Singh 21.11.1976 10 Tribhuwan Mishra 07.09.1976 11 Munni Lal Bhagat 07.09.1976 12 Laxmi Kant Yadav 10.09.1976 13 Bagesh Pandey 21.11.1976 14 Manager Yadav 21.11.1976 15 Babulal Ram 07.09.1976 16 Hasmat Ansari 07.09.1976 17 Rama Prasad Yadav 07.09.1976 18 Devnath Rawat 07.10.1979 19 Swaminath Upadhyay 10.09.1976 20 Hadish Miyan 10.09.1976 21 Ramadhar Sah 07.09.1976 22 Lal Babu Manjhi 21.11.1976 23 Alagu Sah 10.09.1976 24 Paramhansh Chaubey 07.10.1979 25 Dinanath Ram 04.11.1980 26 Ram Bachan Yadav 01.07.1977 27 Saheb Prasad Bhagat 07.09.1976 28 Ramdas Bhagat 07.09.1979 29 Surtanand Ram 07.19.1976 30 Nathu Ram 07.09.1976 31 Sri Kishun Prasad 07.09.1976 32 Rudal Yadav 07.09.1976 33 Tufani Ram 21.11.1976 34 Rajendra Baitha 02.01.1977 35 Babu Lal Ram 07.09.1976 36 Uma Nath Rawat 07.09.1976 37 Nandlal Ram 07.09.1976 38 Banka Singh 21.11.1976 39 Lalan Pandit 07.09.1976 40 Harendra Singh 07.09.1976 41 Prabhunath Sah 21.11.1976 42 Khelari Kumhar 07.10.1976 43 Rajbali Sah 07.09.1976 44 Ram Ashish Mishra 01.01.1977 45 Ram Lakhan Singh 07.10.1979 46 Devdhari Mahto 07.09.1976 47 Sakal Dev Singh 07.09.1976 48 Ramayan Chaudhary 21.11.976 49 Rojid Ansari 07.09.1976 50 Ramashish Prasad 21.11.1976 51 Suryaman Bhagat 21.11.1976 52 Gauri Shankar Prasad 02.01.1977 53 Rama Kant Prasad 10.09.1976 54 Ram Prawesh Ram 07.09.1976 5. Thereafter, they have completed their training and were discharging the duties of Home Guards to the satisfaction of all concerned. 6. Thereafter, they have completed their training and were discharging the duties of Home Guards to the satisfaction of all concerned. 6. The State Government had issued a Resolution No. 37 of 2015 issued by Special Secretary, Department of Home where duty allowance and other benefits of the Home Guards have been enhanced. In the said resolution it has also been provided that the age limit for continuity of service as a Home Guard has been increased from 58 years to 60 years w.e.f 01.04.2015. It has further been provided that on attaining 60 years of age, the enrollment of the Home Guards would automatically come to an end. He further submits that the petitioners were enrolled on different dates on or after 07.09.1976 and on the date of enrollment their age has been said to be 19 years, as such they would attain the age of 58 years on or after 07.9.2015. In the meanwhile, the Government has taken decision with respect to enhancement of age of superannuation to 60 years w.e.f 01.04.2015 and as such the petitioners were entitled to continue as Home Guards till September, 2017. But the respondent authority debar the petitioners to continue Home Guard w.e.f 31.12.2014. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment / order dated 11.10.2010 passed in C.W.J.C No. 2507 of 2006 where the petitioners of the aforesaid case were validly selected for appointment on the post of Constable under Bihar Military Police and the respondent authority have illegally and arbitrarily discontinued their engagement w.e.f 31.12.2014. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid judgments, the petitioners are entitled to continue to be enrolled as Home Guards up to the age of 60 years and they are entitled to be extended the enhancement of age and other benefits as per the resolution of the Department of Home dated 03.07.2015 and 14.07.2015. 9. Learned counsel for the State submits that the date of coming into effect of the said Regulation is wrongly mentioned as 01.04.2014 in place of 01.04.2015. 9. Learned counsel for the State submits that the date of coming into effect of the said Regulation is wrongly mentioned as 01.04.2014 in place of 01.04.2015. The date of birth of some of the Home Guards were found to be not matching with the date of birth as given in their Matriculation certificate and at the time of engagement of these home guards they were found to be less than 19 years of age, if their matriculation certificate were taken as evidence of age. In the circumstances some of the home guards came before this Hon’ble Court when they were denied appointment as Constables in Bihar Military Police on the ground of variance in their date of birth in the training certificate and the matriculation certificate. The Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C No. 2507 of 2006 vide order dated 11.10.2010 directed the DG of the Home Guard to look into the matter and to communicate the outcome of the petitioners of that case. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 11.10.2010 passed in C.W.J.C No. 2507 of 2006, the DG of Home Guard, Bihar, Patna vide memo no. 207 dated 19.01.2012 came out with an order treating the date of birth of the home guards to be the date given by them at the time of registration. It was further decided that as per Clause 4 (A) of the Home Guard Rules, 1953, the candidate shall be treated to be of 19 years of age in such cases on the first day of January of that year of registration. In view of the said order any home guard attaining the age of 58 years in a given year shall be treated to have attained that age on the 1st day of January of that year and thus his engagement comes to an end on the first day of January of that year he attains 58 years. In view of the aforesaid resolution, the engagement of the petitioners were automatically come to an end on the first day of January of the year they attain 58 years of age. Any home guard who according to their entry at the time of registration attained 58 years of age as per the aforesaid order dated 10.01.2012 before coming into force of the resolution as their engagement came to an end on the first day of January itself. 10. Any home guard who according to their entry at the time of registration attained 58 years of age as per the aforesaid order dated 10.01.2012 before coming into force of the resolution as their engagement came to an end on the first day of January itself. 10. Learned counsel for the State further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708. Referring to the paragraph 17 which is as follows; – 17. Such a decision lies exclusively within the domain of the Executive. It is for the State to take a call as to whether the circumstances demand that a decision be taken to extend the age of superannuation in respect of a set of employees or not. It must be assumed that the State would have weighed all the pros and cons before arriving at any decision to grant extension of age. As for the aspect of retrospectivity of such a decision, let us not forget, whatever may be the cut-off date fixed by the State Government, some employees would always be left out in the cold. But that alone would not make the decision bad: nor would it be a ground for the Court to tread into matters of policy that are best left for the State Government to decide. The appellants herein cannot claim a vested right to apply the extended age of retirement to them retrospectively and assume that by virtue of the enhancement in age ordered by the State at a later date, they would be entitled to all the benefits including the monetary benefits flowing from G.O. dated 9th April, 2012, on the ground of legitimate expectation. 11. And in the present case the petitioners were disengaged from service after attaining the age of 58 years w.e.f 31.12.2014 so the petitioners cannot claim for benefit of the resolution dated 01.04.2015 that has come after the disengagement of the petitioners. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the claim of the petitioners cannot be sustain and the writ petition stands dismissed.