CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 07 SHI CK 0087

Pawan Kumar vs Inder Singh & Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 25 July 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ · Ajay Mohan Goel, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Review Petition No.82 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 370 words

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ

CMP(M) No.745 of 2023

1.

This application is filed to condone the delay of one year and three months in filing the review petition.

2.

For the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the review petition is condoned.

Review Petition No.82 of 2023

3.

This review petition is filed by a 3rd party seeking review of order dt. 5th January, 2021, in CWP No.3628 of 2020.

4.

In that writ petition, the 1st respondent had challenged an order refusing his request for re-enrollment as a volunteer in the Home Guards cadre before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No.374 of 2018.

5.

The Tribunal had directed his application to be treated as representation to the respondent concerned.

6.

Challenging it, he filed CWP No.3628 of 2020.

7.

This Court had directed respondents no.2 to 5 to consider the request of the 1st respondent for re-enrollment as a volunteer to the Home Guards since he claims to be having requisite fitness and health for discharge of the said duty.

8.

In the review petition, the petitioner contends that though the Home Guards service is a voluntary service, the order passed by this Court on 05.01.2021 in CWP No.3628 of 2020 has opened a Pandora’s box and there are so many requests of re-engagement that persons like the petitioner in the review petition are not getting enough work, and therefore their income has come down.

9.

It is not the case of the review petitioner that the job of Home Guard is in nature of civil post and he himself admits that it is a voluntary service. Since the review petitioner is anyway working as Home Guard, he cannot prevent other people for aspiring to become Home Guards if the State chooses to consider them for re-engagement or re-enrollment, and if thereby he does not get much work, it is open for him to find some other job.

10.

We find no error apparent on the face of order dt. 5th January, 2021 in CWP No.3628 of 2020. Therefore, this review petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.

11.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.