Disposed

Smt. Anusuya Devi v. Union of India through Its Secretary, Home Affairs

Uttarakhand HC3 Aug 2022WPSS/3233/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of two writ petitions sought for recognition and benefits for 'Intensively Trained Volunteers' (ITVs). Relying on the Guwahati High Court's Division Bench judgment affirmed by the Supreme Court, the court directed the respondents to consider extending similar benefits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be entitled to similar benefits as granted to petitioners in SLP No. 8074 of 2001; respondents to decide within two months.

Smt. Anusuya Devi Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

SL. No Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
03.08.2022		WPSS No. 3233 of 2018 With WPSS No. 34 of 2017. Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
		Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondents. Brief facts of the case are, that the petitioners in the present writ petition, who are nine in number, have come up with the case that the petitioners, or their predecessors were, Gurillas or the legal heirs of the Gurillas, who are working as a substitute armed forces, to the paramilitary services and had rendered their services in the interest of the nation under the nomenclature of “Intensively Trained Volunteers (ITVs)”. This Class of Gurilla warfare and to the group to which the petitioners or some of their predecessors belonged were associated with the S.S.B. and were directly functioning under the control of the Cabinet/Secretariat. Ever since 2003, since the Gurillas (a class of armed personnel) having acquired the status of being a paramilitary force, they came under the direct control Ministry of Home Affairs, ignoring the claim and the extension of benefit to the Gurilla, who were the Members by the S.S.B. The matter was agitated before Guwahati High Court, Imphal Bench inWrit Appeal No. 142 of 2000, Union of India & others vs. The President and others. The Guwahati High Court in its Division Bench judgement rendered on 24.01.2001, after considering the entire conspicuous of the claim raised by the Association; as well as the individual Members of the Military and Paramilitary Forces and their heirs and taking into consideration the S.S.B. news bulletin as published in 1983, as well as the various other aspects, the Division Bench had issued a direction to the Government of India, to regularise the services of the volunteers who were workingor

¶2

presently working in the capacity of Paramilitary
Forces in the Gurilla warefare. The following direction was issued:- “This being the position we find no difficulty for the Union of India to comply with said order. So far clause Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of the direction given by the learned single Judge are concerned, we find nothing to interfere so far clause No.2 is concerned, learned central Govt. stand counsel submits that in order to comply the entire order passed by the learned single judge w.e.f. 1-7-2000 would be impracticable. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents on that point also we are of the opinion that the central Government must regularize the services of the volunteers as mentioned in clause (1) of the impugned judgment w.e.f. that date of judgment viz. 8-9-2000 instead of 1-7-2000. The exercise a directed above, must be completed within three months.” The judgment of the Division Bench of Guwahati High Court was challenged by the Union of India, before the Hon’ble Apex Court inSLP (Civil) No. 8074 of 2001, Union of India & others vs. VVF, Welfare Organisation & others. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment of 12.02.2003, had dismissed the SLP preferred by the
Government of India and has affirmed the judgment of Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court, whereby, the extension of benefit as contended to be extended to the Gurillas and the legal heirs of the Gurilla family members of the paramilitary services, who were the members of the so called group called as “Intensively Trained Volunteers” were extended with the benefit. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench of this Court inWrit Petition (S/S) No. 1575 of 2006, Mohan Singh & others vs. Union of India & others. The Coordinate
Bench of this Court too, in its judgment of
14.12.2011, after taking into consideration the
implication of the Division Bench judgment of Guwahati High Court and its subsequent affirmation
by the Hon’ble Apex Court has relegated the matter
to the competent authority to extend the benefits, as it has been determined bythe Division Benchjudgment

¶3

of Guwahati High Court.
Despite of the aforesaid settled preposition
of law by the constitutional Courts, the petitioners are
still craving for the grant of similar benefits as they
are prayed for in the writ petition, despite being
similarly placed.
Since the issue is no more_res integra_and
has been settled upto Hon’ble Apex Court, this Writ
Petition, would too stand disposed of in terms of the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court as
rendered inWrit Petition (S/S) No. 1575 of 2006,
Mohan Singh & others vs. Union of India &
others, as decided on 14.12.2011, but with the slight
clarification,
that
when
the
respondents
are
considering the claim of the petitioner, as it has been
settled to be extended by Division Bench of the
Guwahati High Court, the respondents would be
conscious of considering the claim of the petitioners
in the light of the decision, which has been affirmed
up to the Apex Court and it is expected that the
respondents, will extend the similar benefits, as it has
been extended to the petitioners of the Writ Petition,
who were the respondents inSLP No. 8074 of 2001.
It is hoped and trusted that the respondents will take a
decision and pass an appropriate suitable order,
within a period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stand
disposed of.
Disposal of this Writ Petitions, subject to
the aforesaid observation, will not preclude the
petitioners right to re-approach the Court in an event
if there is a denial for extension of benefit to the
petitioners, as directed by the judgment of Division
Bench of Guwahati High Court and affirmed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court.
Let copy of the order be placed in the
connected Writ Petition also.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
03.08.2022
Nahid

Smt. Anusuya Devi v. Union of India through Its Secretary, Home Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anusuya Devi v. Union of India through Its Secretary, Home Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamendra Singh Rauthan Vs State of Uttarakhand Thorugh Secretary

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Irrigation Department

Vikas Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand Thorugh Secretary

Ram Pratap Singh Vs G.B. Pant Agriculture and Technology University Pant Nagar through Its Vice- Chancellor

Anand Singh Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies

Mohan Singh Vs Union of India through Its Secretary, Home Affairs