Rajasthan High Court
CW/9825/2026 of SULTAN SINGH MEENA S/O SHRI GHEESA RAM MEENA, Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 27 May 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9823/2026 Hariom Mudgal S/o Shri Chiranji Lal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 14816, Beriya Kachchi Basti, Naahari Ka Naka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (302016), Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9823/2026
Hariom Mudgal S/o Shri Chiranji Lal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 14816, Beriya Kachchi Basti, Naahari Ka Naka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (302016), Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (302005), Rajasthan
2.
The Director General And Commandant General Of Home Guards, Department Of Home Guards, Government Of Rajasthan, Plot No. 4/1/10-11, Sector-4, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (302029), Rajasthan
3.
The District Commandant (Home Guards), Home Guards
Training Centre, Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
Connect with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9825/2026
Sultan Singh Meena S/o Shri Gheesa Ram Meena, Aged About 57 Years, R/o E-115, Baiji Ki Kothi, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur
(302004), Rajasthan
Versus
1.
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (302005), Rajasthan
2.
Government Of Rajasthan, Plot No. 4/1/10-11, Sector-4, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (302029), Rajasthan
3.
The District Commandant (Home Guards), Home Guards
Training Centre, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Divan Chand S/o Shri Khairati Lal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 12846, Jatiji Ki Bagichi, Laxminarayanpuri, Mandi Khatikan, Jaipur (302003), Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (302005) Rajasthan.
2.
(2 of 3)
[CW-9823/2026]
Home Guards, Department Of Home Guards,
Government Of Rajasthan Plot No. 4/1/10-11, Sector-4, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (302039) Rajasthan.
3.
The District Commandant (Home Guards), Home Guards
Training Centre, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Kali Charan Das, S/o Shri Sharad Chand, Aged About 58
Years, R/o 61, Regar Basti, Tonk Phatak Ke Pass, Mansingh Pura, Jaipur (302018), Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (302005), Rajasthan.
2.
Government Of Rajasthan, Plot No. 4/1/10-11, Sector- 4, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (302039), Rajasthan
3.
The District Commandant (Home Guards), Home Guards Traning Centre, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Punit Singhvi,
Mr. Ishan Verma
For Respondent(s)
:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
27/05/2026
1. In this batch of writ petition, writ petitioners have raised a grievance of similar nature that as Home Guard, their retirement is due on attaining the age of 58 years, yet, they are willing to serve as Home Guard until attaining the age of 60 years, hence, respondents be directed to consider their grievance for extension of their services until attaining the age of 60 years. In view of above grievance, counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance
(3 of 3) [CW-9823/2026] on the order dated 17.10.2025, passed in SBCWP No. 20545/2025 by Coordinate Bench at Principle Seat, Jodhpur, wherein the writ petition was disposed of in terms of previous order dated 18.09.2024, passed in case of Rafiq Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. in S.B.CWP No.15251/2024.
2. Indisputably, as per Notification dated 28.05.2021, by promulgation of the Rajasthan Home Guards (Amendment) Rules, 2021, the upper age limit of Home Guards has been prescribed up to the age of 58 years. Rule 9 of the Amended Rules of 2021 reads as under: “9. Age limit for a member of the Home Guards- A member of the Home Guards may continue to be such member until he attains the age of 58 years.”
3. In view of above, counsel for the petitioners does not want to press these writ petitions and seeks permission to withdraw these writ petitions.
4. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
5. Stay applications and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Pcg/130 to 132 and 135