Holding

The Supreme Court held that it cannot direct regularisation of Home Guard members or grant them regular service benefits, as the Home Guards are a voluntary reserve force and such matters are beyond judicial competence.

Summary

The respondents, members of the Manipur Home Guards, filed writ petitions seeking regularisation of their service and the grant of regular pay scales and pension benefits. The Guwahati High Court ordered the State to regularise them and to extend all service benefits applicable to regular government employees. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the nature of the Home Guards under the Manipur Home Guards Act, 1966 and the 1981 Rules, noting that the force is a voluntary reserve meant for emergencies, with an initial three‑year appointment and re‑appointment at the discretion of the Commandant. Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, the Court held that it has no power to direct regularisation or to award regular service benefits. Consequently, the High Court’s directions were set aside and the writ petitions dismissed. The Court also observed that in several states the Home Guards Act is being misused and suggested that the Central Government may withhold funds where the Act is not strictly followed.

Issues considered

Can the Supreme Court direct regularisation of Home Guard members and grant them regular service benefits?
Whether Home Guards constitute a regular service comparable to police, para‑military or army for purposes of regularisation
Whether the Court has authority to amend the Manipur Home Guards Act and Rules
Interpretation of the tenure provisions (three‑year term, re‑appointment, age limits) under the Act and Rules

Subjects

Home Guardsregularisationservice benefitsjudicial powerstatutory interpretationvoluntary reserve forceemployment lawconstitutional bench

Judgment

- STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANR.
v.
KSH. MOIRANGNINTHOU SINGH AND ORS.
A

FEBRUARY 26, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] B

_.,,,, Manipur Home Guards Act, 1966-ss. 4(4) & 8-Manipur Home Guards
Rules, 1981-rr. 3, 7 & 8-Writ petitions seeking regularisation of services
as Home Guards and for grant of regular pay scales-Allowed by High c
Court-Correctness of-Held, not correct-Initial appointment for Home
Guard is for 3 years-Subsequent re-appointment is at the discretion of the
Commandant-Home Guards is a voluntary reserve force to be utilised in
emergencies-Not a service like police, para military force or army-Service
Law-Regularisation.
D
Home Guards Acts of various States-Where provisions of the Act not
strictly followed-Suggestion to Central Government to consider not releasing
fonds for Home Guards in such States.

Respondents filed several writ petitions for regularisation of their
E
services as Home Guards and for grant of regular pay scales. High Court
allowed the petitions and directed the State Government to regularise the
services of Respondents and to grant them all service benefits, including
pensionary benefits, as payable to Government employees holding civil posts.
Hence the present appeals.
F
Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD:l. In view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in
Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., this Court cannot
direct regularization in service. Since the Court has no power to direct
regularization, it also follows that it has no power to direct grant of benefits G
payable to the regular employees. (Para 7117-EI
- .>l, Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., (20061 4
SCC I, followed.
H
193
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A 2. A perusal of the provisions of the Manipur Home Guards Act, 1966
and Manipur Home Guards Rules, 1981 show that the Home Guards was
meant to be a reserve force which was to be utilized in emergencies, but it
....
was not a service like the police, para military force or army; and there is no
right in a member to continue till the age of 55 years. The initial appointment
is for 3 years after which it is at the discretion of the Commandant (subject
B
to approval of the Commandant General) to reappoint a member of the Home
Guards, or not. The concept of Home Guards was of a voluntary citizen force
as auxiliary to the police for maintaining law and order and for meeting
emergencies like floods, fires, famine etc. and for civil defence. (Paras 12,
*---
13 and 14) (196-F-G-H)
c
Rajesh Mishra v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 98 (2002) DLT 624 (DB),
approved.

(The Court observed that the Home Guards Act in several States appears
to be misused, and so the Central Government may consider not releasing
D funds for the Home Guards in a State where the provisions of the Act are not
being strictly followed. f

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1897-1901 of
2006. '-

f
E From the Judgment and final Order dated 9.6.99 of the Gauhati High
Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 97 of 1995 and 14 to 17 of 1996.

V.N. Ganpule, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh and S. Biswajit Meitei for the
Appellants.
F
G.E. Vahanvati Sol. Gen., S.K. Bhattacharya, L.K. Paonam, Ajay Kumar
Porwal, Devadatt Kamat, Harishikesh Baruah and Sushma Suri for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. These appeals have been filed against the
impugned judgment of the Guwahati High Court, Imphal Bench dated 9.6.1999
in Writ Appeal Nos. 97of1995 and 14 to 17of1996.
,"- -
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the record.
H
STATE OF MAN!PUR v. KSH. MOIRANGNINTHOU SINGH [KA}JU, J.] 195

3. It appears that the respondents had filed several writ petitions in the A
Guwahati High Court inter alia praying that their services be regularized in
the Home Guards and that they be given regular pay scales.

4. The learned Single Judge by his Judgment directed the state
Government to regularize the services of the writ petitioners and to grant them
all service benefits, including pensionary benefits, as are payable to government B
employees holding civil posts. The learned Single Judge also directed that the
serices of the employees who have put in 10 years' of service in the Home
Guards should be regularized. The learned Single Judge further directed
amendment of the Rules and the Act.

5. Against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge an appeal was
c
ti led before the Division Bench.

6. The Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had no power
to direct amendment of the Act and the Rules, and we fully agree with this
view since the Act can be amended only by the Legislature and the Rules D
can only be amended by the State Government, or the empowered under the
Manipur Home Guards Act, 194 7. However, the Division Bench upheld the
_, other directions given in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge.
)
7. We are of the opinion that in view of the Constitution Bench Judgment E
of this Court in Secretary, State of Karna/aka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors.,
[2006] 4 SCC 1, this Court cannot direct regularization in service. Since the
Court has no power to direct regularization, it also follows that it has no
power to direct grant of benefits payable to the regular employees.

8. It may be noted that home Guards Act has been constituted as a F
voluntary organization for service in emergencies and hence it cannot be
---i treated at par with other organizations like the army, para military organizations
or the civil police.

9. We have carefully perused the Manipur Home Guards Act, 1996.Section
4(4) of the Act States as under: G
"Subject to any rules made in this behalf, a Home Guard shall be
required to serve the Home Gaurds organizations (including the period
spent in training) which period may be extended by the Government
to such further period as it may consider necessary, and a Home H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A Guard shall thereafter serve in the reserve force of Home Guards
constituted as hereinafter provided for a period of three years and
shall, while serving in such reserve force, be liable to be called out
for duty at any time."

I 0. Section 8 states:
B
"The Home Guards may be called out in aid of the police force and
when they are so called out they shall be under the control of the
officers of the police force in such manner and to such extent as may
be prescribed."

c 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to
Rule 3 of the Rules which states that no person shall be appointed as a
member of the Home Guards unless he has attained the age of 20 years arid
has not completed the age of 50 years. Learned counsel submitted that ·this
means that a member of the Home Guard has a right to continue till the age
D of 50 years. We do not agree. The 50-years age is the maximum limit after
which a member of the Home Guards cannot be appointed. Rule 7 of the
Manipur Home Guards Rules 1981 states that the term of office of a member
of the Home Guards shall be 3 years, but once appointed he shall be eligible
for re-appointment. However, Rule 8 states that a member of the Home Guards
f
E can continue to be such a member until he attains the age of 55 years. Hence,
the initial term of appointment of a member of the Home Guards can only be
three years, and he can be reappointed from time to time, but he cannot
continue after the age of 55 years.

12. A perusal of the provisions of the Home Guards Act and Rules show
F that the Home Guards was meant to be a reserve force which was to be
utilized in emergencies, but it was not a service like the police, para military
force, or army, and there is no right in a member to continue till the age of
55 years. We approve the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Rajesh
Mishra v. Govt. ofNCT of Delhi 98 (2002) DL T 624 (DB).

G 13. The initial appointment is for 3 years after which it is at the discreation
of the Commandent (subject to approval of the Commandant General) to
reappoint a member of the H6riie Guards, or not.

14. The concept of Home Guards was of a voluntary citizen force as
H auxiliary to the police for maintaining law and order and for meeting
emergencies like floods, fires, famine etc. and for civil defence.
STATE OF MANIPUR v. KSH. MOIRANGNINTHOU SINGH (KATJU, J.) 197

15. For the reasons given above these appeals are allowed and the A
impugned judgment of the Division Bench as well as of the learned Single
Judge are set aside and the writ petitions filed in the Guwahati High Court
are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

16. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that the
Home Guards Ac~ in several States appears to be misused. Hence, the Central B
Government may consider not releasing funds for the Home Guards in a State
where the provisions of the Act are not being strictly followed.

B.B.B. Appeals allowed.

.\
'