PUNPRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have by this petition challenged the Order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated November 2, 1998 holding that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

(2.) THE petitioners are Home Guard Sainiks. They claim that they are holders of civil post under the State; therefore, the State Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by them. The submission is rested on the ground that their appointment is made under statutory rules formulated by the State Government. There existed master and servant relationship between Home Guards and the State which can deal with them from time to time as per provisions of law. The contention of the petitioners did not find favour with the Tribunal resulting in the dismissal of their application.

(3.) SHRI Syed Abdul Wakil, learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced the same submissions which were raised before the Tribunal. Reliance is placed on some decisions of Supreme Court, namely, AIR 1955 SC 404 (Shivnandan v. Punjab National Bank); AIR 1960 SC 997 (Piyare Lal Adishwar Lal v. Income Tax Commissioner); AIR 1961 SC 564 (Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of A. P.); AIR 1965 SC 360 (State of U. P. v. A. N. Singh); AIR 1977 SC 1677 (Supdt. of Post Offices v. P. K. Rajamma); AIR 1981 SC 53 (Mathuradas v. S. D. Munshaw); and (1995) 4 SCC 8 (R. N. A. Britto v. Chief Executive Officer ). Miss Chandana Mukherjee, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioners are not holders of civil post. Home Guard is voluntary organisation where the petitioners are enrolled for some time against honorarium and are replaced by others after some time. Simply because they are appointed Home Guards under the statutory rules and are controlled thereunder by the State Government, they do not come within the definition of civil service of the State. Two decisions, one of Apex Court - AIR 1999 SC 376 (Union of India v. Chotelal) and the other of this Court reported in AIR 1962 M. P. 51 (Roopsingh v. Sanchalak Panchayat, etc.) are cited in support of the submissions.