KAMALA ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions are being taken up for hearing together as common questions of law and near identical questions of facts are involved in these proceedings.

(2.) The writ petitioners claim to have been members of Home Guards, the constitution of which is regulated by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Home Guards Regulation, 1964. As per the said Regulation, such organization would have the characteristics of a voluntary body, and the members of such body are to exercise such powers and such duties in relation to protection of persons security and property and public safety as may be assigned to them in terms of the provisions of the said Regulation and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Home Guards Rules, 1965 (the Rules, in short). As per clause 8 of the said Rules, the term of office of a member of the Organization is to be three years, with provisions for re-appointment.

(3.) All the petitioners were appointed on various dates between the year 2006 and this year, being 2010 in pursuance of different orders issued in terms of Rule 4(1) of the said Regulation. Some of them are still in service whereas some of them appear to have been discharged from their service. But having regard to the legal issues involved in these petitions, the question as to whether the petitioners are still in service or not is not of much relevance. Though altogether seven writ petitions have been heard, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing with Ms. Tamali Biswas, learned counsel primarily relied on facts pleaded in W.P. No.801 of 2009. Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in this proceeding only, but Mr. Mandal submitted that the respondents would rely on the said affidavit in connection with the other proceedings as well.