STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANR. versus KSH. MOIRANGNINTHOU SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 26-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
KSH. MOIRANGNINTHOU SINGH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 26, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, 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 of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., this Court cannot 
direct regularization in service. Since the Court has no power to direct G 
regularization, it also follows that it has no power to direct grant of benefits 
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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
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 
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) 
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 
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. 
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. 
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 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, 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. 
.... 
*---
'-
f 
,"- -
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 learn
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.