CWP/6654/2023 of HP HOME GUARDS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 8 September 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6654 of 2023 Date of decision: 08.09.2026 H.P. Home Guards Welfare Association …..Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. and others …..Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta and Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Mr.Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocates General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Prashant Manhans, Advocate vice Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, which has been filed by H.P. Home Guards Welfare Association, the petitioner-Association has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i). That the respondent- State may be ordered to frame rules/ service conditions qua members of the petitioner- union and other Home Guards presently serving in the organization independent of the Act of Home Guards Act, 1968 and the rules framed thereunder.

(ii) . That the respondent- State may be ordered to extend pensionary and other retiral benefits as are being extended to the so called whole time members of the Home Guards 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes and the respondent- State may also be ordered to pay gratuity, ex- gratia and other benefits, at par with the other whole time members of the Home Guards.

(iii) . That provisions of EPF Act may also be ordered to be extended to the Members of the petitioner union.

(iv) That the respondents may be ordered to extend benefit of group insurance scheme also to the members of the petitioner union/other Home Guards.”

2. When this case was taken up for consideration today, learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out that earlier also the Volunteer Home Guards had approached the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal praying for same and similar reliefs by way of Original Application No.1871 of 2004, titled Ram Kumar Sharma and others versus State of H.P. and others and this petition has been filed by concealing these material facts.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Original Application filed by the Home Guards Volunteers was dismissed by the learned Tribunal and the order of the learned Tribunal was upheld by this Court in CWP No.588 of 2005, titled Ram Kumar Sharma and others versus State of H.P. and others a/w connected matters in terms of judgment dated 26.05.2008. Learned Additional Advocate General has also informed the Court that the challenge made thereto before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by the aggrieved party was also unsuccessful.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has made available for the perusal of the Court the copy of Original Application

No. 1871 of 2004. In terms of the said Original Application, the original applicants therein, i.e. 25 Home Guard Volunteers had approached the learned Tribunal praying for following reliefs:- “(i). That the respondents may be ordered to regularize the services of the applicants since the Home guards force is permanently needed and as has been stated above, various documents on record indicate that the applicants are serving over the years and they cannot be said to be volunteers or of casual nature.

(ii) That the respondents may be ordered to pay the applicants the pay and allowances at par with the regular counterparts in the Police Department from the date of their initial engagement and at par with the regular Home guards from the date of their initial with all the benefits incidental thereof such as arrears of pay and allowances etc.

(iii) The state may further be directed to grant the Pension to the applicants as is admissible to regular Govt. servants.”

5. In terms of the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 27.05.2005, the Original Application was rejected by passing a detailed order, which order, when challenged by the original applicants before this Court was upheld by this Court in terms of judgment dated 26.05.2008.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the reliefs which were sought therein are same and similar to the reliefs prayed for in the present writ. However, he submitted that earlier certain individuals had approached the Court on their own whereas this time, the present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the H.P. Home Guards Welfare Association.

6. We are of the considered view that once the issue which is now being raised by the petitioner before this Court has already been put to rest in terms of the order passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1871 of 2004, which stood upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the present writ petition is not maintainable being hit by the principles of res judicata. The issue between the parties once having been finally decided, cannot be re-opened under the guise of a different nomenclature being given by the petitioner to the litigation because what has to be seen is the grievance raised and the relief prayed for by the petitioners in both cases.

7. Therefore, in light of the fact that the issue raised in this petition already stands adjudicated against the Home Guards Volunteers by the learned Tribunal, which order stood upheld as upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable being hit by the substantive principles of res judicata as contained in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge (Yogesh Jaswal) Judge

08th September, 2026. (yogesh)