MADAN LAL Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have called in question Village Defence Guard Scheme, 2022 ['VDGS-2022'] issued by the respondents vide Government Order No.287-Home of 2022 dtd. 14/8/2022, only to the extent it categorizes the petitioner-SPOs as Village Defence Guards and provides for payment of Rs.4,500.00 per month to them. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been engaged as SPOs under the erstwhile VDC scheme promulgated by the respondents vide Government Order No.293-Home of 1995 dtd. 30/9/1995 and are therefore, entitled to be treated on a par with the SPOs serving in the Police Department. It is submitted that the VDGS-2022 has deprived them of their status of SPO and also the pay and emoluments attached with and payable to the petitioners as SPOs in the Department of Police.

(2.) Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and their rebuttal by Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned Deputy SGI and Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG, appearing for the respondents, it would be appropriate to trace out the factual antecedents leading to filing of these writ petitions.

(3.) The petitioners, as they claim, have been working as Special Police Officers (SPOs) and are heading different Village Defence Groups constituted by the respondents vide Government Order No.293-Home of 1995 dtd. 30/9/1995 ['1995 Scheme']. As per 1995 scheme, it was clearly provided that each of the Village Defence Group would be headed by a retired officer of the Army/CPMF/State Police and he would be issued and equipped with the higher category of weapon. The Scheme further provided that such head of the group would also be appointed and given the powers of SPO and he would be entitled to be paid the honorarium of Rs.1500.00 per month. It is under this scheme of 1995 promulgated by the Government, all the petitioners came to be appointed as SPOs on the honorarium of Rs.1500.00 per month which has been raised/revised from time to time. The Petitioners claim that at the time of issuance of impugned scheme they were receiving Rs.18,000.00 per month as honorarium.