Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 6373 of 2010, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2015

                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.6373  OF 2010


JIBAN KRISHNA MONDAL & ORS.                                    APPELLANT(S)

                                   VERSUS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.                                   RESPONDENT(S)

                                   WITH

C.A. No.6374 of 2010
C.A. No.6375 of 2010
C.A. No.55 of 2015
C.A. No.56 of 2015
C.A. No.57 of 2015
C.A. No.58 of 2015
C.A. No.59 of 2015
C.A. No.60 of 2015
C.A. No.61 of 2015

                               J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J

      These appeals have  been  preferred  by  the  appellants  against  the
judgment and orders passed by the Calcutta High Court in  F.M.A.  No.588  of
2002 etc. dated 31st January, 2008,  in  W.P.  No.  14779(W)  of  2005  etc.
dated 23rd July, 2008 and in M.A.T. No. 4609 of 2006  dated  26th  November,
2008. By the impugned judgment dated 31st January, 2008, Division  Bench  of
the High Court set aside the judgment of learned  Single  Judge  dated  21st
May, 1999 in C.O. No.21365(W) of 1995 and disposed  of  the  writ  petitions
preferred by appellants-members of the Home  Guards  and  their  Association
accordingly.  By  the  impugned  orders  dated  23rd  July,  2008  and  26th
November, 2008, learned Single Judge and Division Bench of  the  High  Court
respectively disposed of the writ  petitions  preferred  by  appellants-Home
Guards and appeals preferred by the State relying on  observations  made  by
Division Bench in F.M.A. No. 588 of 2002.

2.    The only question involved in these appeals is whether the  appellants
and other members of West Bengal Home Guards  are in services of  the  State
and whether they are entitled for regularization of their  services  or  any
other relief.

3.    The appellants took plea before the High Court  that  the  members  of
West Bengal Home Guards are in the services  of  the  State  performing  the
same duty like police constables who are  Government  employees.   They  are
also entitled for regularization of their services and regular  pay  at  par
with the police personnel.

4.    The aforesaid plea taken by the appellants were opposed by  the  State
of West Bengal and Union of India.  According to them, the members  of  West
Bengal Home Guards are volunteers who are neither  employees  of  the  State
nor  entitled  for  regular  scale  of  pay  and  hence  the   question   of
regularization of their services does not arise.

5.    The submission on  behalf  of  the  appellants  was  accepted  by  the
learned Single Judges of the High Court  who  directed  the  State  to  give
equal salary, allowances and other benefits as allowed by  service  standard
to police personnel of Class IV category. Against which,  the  appeals  were
preferred by the State before the Division Bench. By the  impugned  judgment
and orders High Court disposed of the said appeals and fresh writ  petitions
preferred by the Home Guards. By the impugned judgment dated  31st  January,
2008, the Division Bench of the High Court held that  the  members  of  Home
Guards are volunteers. However, taking  into  consideration  the  sufferings
and miseries so highlighted by the members of the Home Guards, the  Division
Bench observed:

"We, however, express our desire that the legislature as well as  executives
should re-think on the issue as to what best they can do  within  the  frame
work of the Constitution for welfare of the members of the home guard.  They
have given some benefits in  deference  to  the  desire  of  this  Court  as
discussed above. We hope  and  trust  in  future  they  would  try  to  give
something more. We, however, cannot issue any direction on  that  score.  It
would be open for the legislature to re-enact the law  on  the  subject.  It
would be open to the executives to extend further  benefits  if  permissible
within the scope of the said Act  of  1962  as  amended  up-till  date.  We,
abundantly make it clear that our desire should  not  be  construed  as  any
special right accrued in favour of the members of the home  guard  to  claim
as a matter of right any further benefit from the State. The State would  be
free to act in accordance with law. While doing so they should keep in  mind
the plight of the members of the home guard so highlighted by  us  as  above
and  should  consider  their  case  sympathetically  in  the  light  of  the
observation made by us herein before."

6.    It is informed that pursuant to judgment  and  orders  passed  by  the
High Court the State of West Bengal has increased the duty  allowance  which
is more than Rs.300 per day.

STAND OF THE APPELLANTS

7.    The gist of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants can  be
summarized as follows:

(i)   A bare reading of the provisions of the West Bengal Home  Guards  Act,
1962 (hereinafter referred to as '1962 Act') and  West  Bengal  Home  Guards
Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as '1962  Rules')  clearly  establishes
that there is an organized service called the Home  Guard  under  the  State
and there exists master and servant relationship  between  the  Home  Guards
and  the  State  Government.  The  State   Government   exercises   complete
supervision and control over the work done by the Home  Guards  and  directs
what work is to be done and in what manner it  is  to  be  done.   The  Home
Guards satisfies all the following tests laid down by this Court in  Balwant
Rai  Saluja  vs.  Air  India  Ltd.  (2014)  9  SCC  407  to  determine   the
relationship of master and servant:

      (i)   who appoints the workers;

      (ii)  who pays the salary/remuneration;

      (iii)who has the authority to dismiss;

      (iv) who can take disciplinary action;

      (v)  whether there is continuity of service; and

(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e whether there    exists  complete
control and supervision.


(ii)  The State Government failed to prescribe pay scale of the Home  Guards
which is one of the essential conditions of service. In the 1962  Rules,  it
was merely stated that the service would be voluntary and unpaid, which  was
never the intention of the Act. The Act never intended to  create  voluntary
service of Home Guard.

(iii)Rule 4 of the 1962 Rules is ultra vires the Act inasmuch the Act  never
contemplated that the service would be voluntary  and  unpaid.   Rule  4  is
also unconstitutional, being arbitrary and being violative  of  Articles  14
and 16 of the Constitution of India and it amounts to  forced  labour  under
Article 23 of the Constitution.

(iv)   Appellants were regularly appointed as per the  procedure  prescribed
under the said Act and Rules. The  appointment  letters  of  the  appellants
clearly state that they are appointed as members of  Home  Guard  under  the
Act and while on  duty  they  will  have  the  same  powers,  functions  and
privileges as Police Officers appointed under the Police Act (Act V),  1861.
The appointment letters do not state that the appellants were  appointed  as
volunteers.  Even as per the finding of  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High
Court in the impugned judgment "it is  however  an  admitted  fact  for  all
practical purposes that they are engaged on continuous basis  upto  the  age
of 60 years when then are disengaged because of their advance stage." It  is
thus wrong to contend that the appellants were appointed as  volunteers  and
not as members of Home Guard.

(v)   West Bengal Home Guards (Amendment) Act, 1990 was passed by  the  West
Bengal Legislature  whereby  the  word  "member"  was  substituted  by  word
"volunteer".  However, the Act is not retrospective and came into  force  on
1st October, 1989.  It is pertinent to note that  all  the  appellants  were
appointed between 1966 and 1974, i.e. prior to  coming  into  force  of  the
Amendment Act. The Amendment Act has thus not  altered  the  status  of  the
appellants from that being "member" of Home Guards to  "volunteer"  of  Home
Guards.

(vi)   The Home Guards  were  initially  paid  Rs.2.50  per  day  which  was
enhanced to Rs.24.71, then to Rs.53, to Rs.117 and finally to  RS.328  which
is presently being paid. The payment of Rs.328 per day to them who are  duly
trained is a pittance and much below the minimum scale of pay of  the  State
Government.  Payment of wages  below  the  minimum  wages  fixed  under  the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 amounts to  forced  labour  within  the  meaning  of
Article 23 of the Constitution. The appellants are thus entitled to  regular
scale of pay from the date of their appointment.


STAND OF THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

8.    On the other hand, according to learned  counsel  for  the  State,  in
absence of any sanctioned post for members of  Home  Guard,  the  appellants
cannot claim to be employees of the State. The word  "appointment"  used  in
the Act and Rules amounts to enrollment of members in the  Home  Guard.  The
following submissions were also made:

      Section 7 of the Act provides that the members of  Home  Guard  called
out u/s 5 directly in aid of police force shall  be  under  the  control  of
officers of such force in such manner as may be  prescribed  by  rules  made
u/s 9.  This provision clearly indicates that whenever any  member  of  Home
Guard will be called he will discharge his duties.  The  expression  "called
out" clearly shows that their services are called out  only  when  they  are
required as per the circumstances  and  thus  they  are  not  rendering  any
service like a permanent employee.

Rule 4 provides that the service in  the  Home  Guard  shall  ordinarily  be
voluntary.  A plain reading of the objects/reasons  and  the  provisions  of
the Act and the rules framed thereunder clearly indicates that the  services
of the members of the Home Guard are voluntary in character.

Like in other states, in West Bengal also the members of the Home Guard  are
meant for voluntary service and in  effect  they  have  accepted  the  above
position for decades together and  now  at  almost  the  fag  end  of  their
enrollment as member, they cannot demand  that  they  were  entitled  to  be
appointed in the  substantive  post  and  entitled  to  get  any  pay  scale
whatsoever.

All  throughout  their  enrollment  as  members  they  have  received   duty
allowances, which were time to time fixed by the order of  the  Governor  of
West Bengal. Further in the affidavits the appellants have incorrectly  used
the expression "daily wages" instead of "duty allowance". Section 9  of  the
Act empowers  the  State  Government  to  make  rules  in  different  fields
including  condition  of  service  and  allowances.  But  no  pay  has  been
prescribed  in  the  rules  made  thereunder  as  well.   But  in  terms  of
provisions of the Act duty allowance has been given to  them  as  prescribed
from time to time.  Since the Act and Rules did not prescribe any  scale  of
pay, the question giving any pay scale did not and does not arise.  But  all
throughout they were paid duty  allowances.  It  cannot  be  said  that  the
members of the Home Guard were treated  as  bonded  labour  because  neither
were they forced to work nor were they unpaid. They were paid a  substantive
amount which is called as Duty Allowance.

It would be evident from the statement of objects and reasons  of  the  1990
amendment, that the voluntary character of the Home Guards Organization  and
its members had not also been explicit in the 1962 Act  because  of  use  of
the word "appointment as members", and  this  gave  rise  to  confusion  and
claims of permanent status. The amendment Act was brought in 1990 so  as  to
clarify the voluntary character of the Home Guard Organization and that  the
volunteers were enrolled in honorary and voluntary capacity. The  expression
"Voluntary" was used in the 1960 Rules itself. If  objects  and  reasons  of
the 1962 Act, 1990 Act and the provisions of the Act  and  Rules  are  taken
into consideration, it can be safely said that the status of the members  of
the Home Guard are voluntary in character and  only  when  they  are  called
upon to discharge their duty they perform their duty.  Further they are  not
entitled to get any pay or any other benefits except duty  allowances  which
the State Government may time to time fix.


STAND OF THE UNION OF INDIA

9.    Learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of Union  of  India  made
the following submissions:

The concept  of  Home  Guards  has  always  been  voluntary.   This  concept
originated after the Second World War.  In India, it was first conceived  as
a force in 1946.  The Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947 apparently was among  the
first few of such State enactments.  Its  preamble  states  that  it  is  "a
volunteer organization for use in emergencies......" Section 3 provides  for
appointment of Home Guards, "who are fit and willing to serve....."  Rule  8
of the Bombay Home Guard Rules, 1953 provides that the term of a Home  Guard
shall be three years.

      The following features are note-worthy in the said Act.


There is no salary, retirement benefits like pension etc.

There is no regular cadre.

The term of Home Guard is only 3 years.

(iv)  Persons "fit and willing to serve" are to  come  forward  to  join  as
Home Guards.

        (v) It is a volunteer organization.

         (vi)   No methodical system of recruitment.

      This Act has been extended to Delhi.

A Careful perusal of almost all the State  enactments  will  show  that  the
Organization was always meant to be voluntary and  it  consisted  of  people
from all walks of life. In fact Government servants were  also  enrolled  in
the Home Guards to be called as and  when  the  need  arises.  However  such
persons were to route their application through  their  employers  with  the
employer's No objection to  lend  their  service.  In  fact  refusal  of  an
employer or obstruction met with penal consequences.  For  the  period  when
these enrolled person were called for Home Guard  duty,  their  service  was
treated as continuing and salary was to  be  paid.   This  shows  that  Home
Guards are not a separate full time  employment  but  it  was  utilized  for
specific occasions.  Realizing that the  1962  Act  did  not  use  the  term
"volunteer" or "enrolment" and since there was a spate of  litigations,  the
Act was amended in 1990. The Statement of Objects  and  Reasons  dated  18th
April, 1990 is critical.  It states that the Act was passed in the  wake  of
external aggression in 1962. It states  that  the  voluntary  character  was
also not explicit in 1962 Act and this gave rise to confusion and claims  of
permanent status.  It was made clear  that  the  character  of  Home  Guards
shall be voluntary where  volunteers  would  be  enrolled  in  honorary  and
voluntary capacity.  What was implicit was thus  made  explicit.   The  1962
Act was made after more than 15 years of other State Acts.  The  legislature
of the State would be aware of the legislatures in different  parts  of  the
country dealing with the same issue  and  had  framed  it  accordingly.   By
virtue of  amendment,  the  concept  of  voluntary  nature  of  service  and
voluntary organization was made clear.

The amendment is thus  purely  clarificatory.  It  made  explicit  what  was
implicit before. Clarificatory amendments will be  retrospective  in  nature
since the intention of the  Act  would  be  deemed  to  be  right  from  the
inception. Hence the term voluntary and enrolment will always be  deemed  to
have been there.


10.   For determination  of  the  issue,  it  is  necessary  to  notice  the
'Genesis' of Home Guards Organization and relevant provisions  of  Acts  and
Rules  framed  by  State  of  West  Bengal  with  regard  to   Home   Guards
Organization.

11.   Genesis

      In  the  Compendium  of  Instructions  of  Home  Guards  published  by
Directorate General Civil Defence, Ministry of Home Affairs,  Government  of
India, New Delhi, the Genesis of Home Guard Organization is shown as below:

      "1.1. Genesis

      During World War-II, 'Home Guards'- a voluntary  citizen  organization
for local defence was raised in  the  United  Kingdom.   In  India,  in  6th
December 1946, Home Guards were raised in Bombay to  assist  the  police  in
controlling Civil  disturbances  and  communal  riots.   Subsequently,  this
concept of a voluntary citizen's  force  as  auxiliary  to  the  Police  for
maintenance of law and  order  and  for  meeting  emergencies  like  floods,
fires, famines etc. was adopted by several  other  States  such  as  Paranti
Raksha Dal, West Bengal Village block and  Civic  Guards.  In  the  wake  of
Chinese Aggression  in  1962,  the  Centre  advised  the  States  and  Union
Territories to merge their existing voluntary organizations into one  all  -
India force known as 'Home Guards' which would be voluntary both in  concept
and character.

      1.2.  Role

      The following revised roles are assigned to  the  Home  Guards.  These
instructions have been reiterated from time to time:

      (a) Serve as an auxiliary to the  police  and  assist  in  maintaining
internal security.

      (b)   Assist the community in any kind of emergency  an  air  raid,  a
fire, a flood, an epidemic and so on.

      (c)   Organise functional units to provide essential services such  as
motor transport, pioneer and engineer groups,  fire  brigades,  nursing  and
first-aid, operation of water and power supply in installations etc.

       (d)    Promote  communal  harmony  and   give   assistance   to   the
administration in protecting weaker sections of the Society.

      (e)   Participate in socio-economic and  welfare  activities  such  as
adult education, health and hygiene,  development  schemes  and  such  other
tasks as are deemed useful."


WEST BENGAL HOME GUARDS ACT, 1962

12.   Initially, West  Bengal  Home  Guards  Ordinance,  1962  (West  Bengal
Ordinance XI of 1962) was promulgated. In exercise of  the  power  conferred
u/s  9  of  the  said  Ordinance,  the  Government  of  West  Bengal,   Home
Department, Police by notification No.4583P  1  dated  13th  November,  1962
framed "The West Bengal Home Guards Rules, 1962".

      The Ordinance subsequently was made an Act known as "The  West  Bengal
Home Guards Act, 1962.

      From Statement  of  Objects  and  Reasons  shown  in  (Part  IVA)  the
Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary dated 14th November, 1962, we find  that  the
Home Guard  Organization  was  raised  after  the  Chinese  aggression.  The
Statement of Objects and Reasons reads as follows:

                      "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

      In connection  with  the  defence  of  the  country  against  external
aggression it has been found necessary to  raise  an  organization  of  Home
Guards, the members of which  may  be  called  out  for  the  protection  of
persons, the security of property or the public safety and  for  such  other
allied functions as may be assigned  to  them  according  to  circumstances.
Accordingly, the West Bengal Home  Guards  Ordinance,  1962,  was  made  and
promulgated by  the  Governor  under  clause  (1)  of  Article  213  of  the
Constitution. The present Bill is intended to enact the  provisions  of  the
said Ordinance. The clauses of the Bill are self-explanatory."


      Section 3 of the Act relating to constitution of Home Guards reads  as
follows:

"3. Constitution of Home Guards. The Superintendent of Police in a  district
or the Commissioner of Police in Calcutta may constitute  for  the  district
or Calcutta, as the case may be, a body to be called the  Home  Guards,  the
members  of  which  shall  discharge  such  functions  in  relation  to  the
protection of persons, the security of property or the public safety as  may
be assigned to them in accordance with the provisions of this  Act  and  the
rules made thereunder."


      As per Section 5 of the Act, the Superintendent of Police may  at  any
time call out  a Home  Guard  for  training  or  to  discharge  any  of  the
functions assigned to the Home Guard in accordance with  the  provisions  of
the Act.

      In the year 1990 by notification No.1189-I dated 30th July, 1990,  the
West Bengal Home Guards (Amendment) Act, 1990 was  notified.  It  was  given
effect from 1st October, 1989. By the said amendment in place  of  a  'body'
'a body of volunteers' was substituted in Section 3. Similarly,  by  Section
7 of the Amendment Act the word 'member' in Section  6  was  substituted  by
the word 'volunteers'.  By Section 8 of the Amendment Act in Section  7  the
word 'Member" was substituted by the word 'volunteers'. By Section 9 of  the
Amendment Act the word 'members'  in  Section  8  was  substituted  by  word
'volunteers' and in place of words 'as a member  of  the  Home  Guards'  the
words 'as such volunteer' were substituted. By Section 10 of  the  Amendment
Act, in clause (b) of sub Section 2  of  Section  9  of  the  Act  the  word
'enrolment' was substituted in place of the word 'appointment' and  for  the
word 'members' the word 'volunteers' was substituted. Similar  substitutions
were made in different clauses of Section 9.


WEST BENGAL HOME GUARDS RULES, 1962

13.   Rule 3 deals with appointment and reads as follows:

      "3. Appointment (i) Application for enrolment as members of  the  Home
Guards shall be in the form set out in Schedule A to these  rule  and  shall
be presented to the Group Commander of the area within which  the  applicant
resides. The  Group  Commander  shall  interview  the  candidate  and  shall
forward the application with his  recommendations  through  the  Home  Guard
Commandant to the appointing  authority  and  such  authority  may,  in  its
discretion, refuse to accept any particular recommendation for  appointment.
All recruits shall  be  formally  enrolled  with  due  ceremony  on  parade,
provided that before such enrolment, a recruit shall if he  is  in  service,
be required to produce a certificate from his  employer  agreeing  to  spare
his services for training and duty when so required."


      Rule 4 relates to conditions of service, as quoted below:

      "4.Conditions of service-Save as the State  Government  may  otherwise
direct in the case of any class of officers,  service  in  the  Home  Guards
shall ordinarily be voluntary and unpaid.

      Provided that the State Government may determine the allowances to  be
paid to the members of the Home Guard when calls out on duty."

      Rule 7 relates to duties as follows:

      "7.Duties-Members of the Home Guards may be called out on duty.

      (i)to assist the police force in the protection  of  Civil  population
against the forces of crime and disorder;

      (ii)to work in close touch with Civil Defence Organization;

      (iii)to perform such duties  in  connection  with  the  protection  of
persons, the security  of  property  or  the  public  safety  as  the  State
Government may, from time to time, by rule assign to them."


Rule 8 relates to order for calling out Home Guards and reads as follows:

      "8.Order for calling out Home Guard-A Home Guard in  its  entirely  or
such portion thereof as the Superintendent of Police or the Commissioner  of
Police, as the case may be, thinks fit may be called out on  any  particular
occasion and for such purpose a written order shall be issued in a  district
by the Superintendent of Police and  in  Calcutta  by  the  Commissioner  of
Police."


14.   From plain  reading  of  the  aforesaid  Rules,  the  following  facts
emerge:

(i)   West Bengal Home Guards are enrolled as member of the  Home  Guard  in
the form set out in Schedule A of the Rules.

(ii)  The Home Guards shall ordinarily be volunteers  and  unpaid.  But  the
State Government may determine the allowances to be paid to the  members  of
the Home Guard when they are called out for duty.

(iii)There is no fixed duty for members of the Home  Guard.  When  they  are
called out for duty, they shall assist the police force  in  the  protection
of civil population against the forces of crime and disorder. They  have  to
work in close touch with Civil Defence  Organization  and  have  to  perform
such duties in connection /with the protection of persons, the  security  of
property or the public safety as the State  Government  may,  from  time  to
time, determine.

      Therefore, if the 1962 Act is read  with  1962  Rules,  we  find  that
members of Home Guards are ordinarily unpaid volunteers for whom  the  State
Government shall determine the pay and allowances when called out for  duty.

15.   The voluntary character  of  the  Home  Guards  Organization  was  not
explicit in the 1962  Act  because  of  the  use  of  word  "appointment  as
members", though it was explicit from 1962 Rules as noticed above.

For the reasons aforesaid, the State Government issued Amendment Act, 1990.

16.   The Statement of Objects and Reasons of  amended  1990  Act  reads  as
follows:

                      "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

            Home Guard Organization was created in West Bengal in  the  wake
of the external aggression on India in 1962 and the West Bengal  Home  Guard
Act was passed in the same year.  Since the  passing  the  Act,  there  have
been many changes in the working of the organization as a  result  of  which
the Act has become outdated.  There is no reference in the 1962 Act  to  the
post of Commandant General, Home Guards, West Bengal which was created  long
after the enactment of the current Act.  Although  the  Commandant  General,
Home Guards,  West  Bengal  has  been  given  the  task  of  commanding  and
controlling Home Guards Organization in the districts  in  West  Bengal  and
administrating Home Guards Budget, legally he cannot issue any direction  to
the Superintendent of Police or to other police officers posted in the  Home
Guard section of the district.   There  is  hence  absence  of  a  chain  of
command in the Home Guards Organization.

The voluntary character of the Home Guards Organization  and  its  voluntary
members had not also been explicit in the 1962 Act because  of  use  of  the
word "appointment as members", and this gave rise to  confusion  and  claims
of permanent states.

In view of the above reasons, the present  amendment  to  West  Bengal  Home
Guard Act, 1962 is proposed with the objectives of establishing the  control
of  Commandant  General,  Home  Guard,  West   Bengal   over   Home   Guards
Organization in West Bengal districts and defining the ex  officio  capacity
of Additional Commandant General, Home Guard of the Commissioner  of  Police
in Calcutta and of making clear the voluntary, character of the  Home  Guard
Organization  where  volunteers  are  enrolled  in  honorary  and  voluntary
capacity.

The Bill has been framed with the above objects in view."


      Thereby the intention of the Legislature to create  a  voluntary  Home
Guard Organization is made clear.

17.   In Rajesh Mishra v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,  98  (2002)  DLT  624,  the
High Court speaking through S.B. Sinha,J held that that the Home  Guards  is
a  voluntary  organization  and  there  is  no  Master-Servant  relationship
between Government and Home Guards.  It was held that  they  are  not  civil
servants  and  they  cannot  move  before  the  Tribunal  u/s  19   of   the
Administrative Tribunal Act.

18.   In State of Manipur and  another  v.  Ksh.  Moirangninthou  Singh  and
others, (2007) 10 SCC 544, this Court reiterated  the  voluntary  nature  of
service of members of Home Guard and held:

"8. It may be noted that Home Guards have been constituted  as  a  voluntary
organisation for service in emergencies and hence it cannot be treated on  a
par with other organisations like the army,  paramilitary  organisations  or
the civil police.

[pic]11. A perusal of the provisions of the Home Guards Act  and  the  Rules
show that the Home Guards was meant to be a reserve force which  was  to  be
utilised in  emergencies,  but  it  was  not  a  service  like  the  police,
paramilitary 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. of NCT of Delhi.

13. 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."


19.   A Careful perusal of genesis of Home Guards and  its  role  will  show
that the Organization was always meant to be voluntary and it  consisted  of
people from all walks  of  life.  In  fact  Government  servants  were  also
enrolled in the Home Guards to be called as and  when  the  need  arises.  A
large number of State enactments i.e. Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act,  1948,
Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947, Assam Home  Guards  Act,  1947,  Manipur  Home
Guards Act, 1966, Madhya Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1947,  Punjab  Home  Guard
Act, 1947, Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 etc. placed before this Court  in
compilation by learned Attorney General during the hearing  makes  it  clear
that the provisions of all these enactments are more or less  similar.   The
voluntary nature is a basic feature of the Home Guards.

20.   Majority of the appellants has attained the maximum  age  and  are  no
more members of the Home Guards. The appointment  letters  enclosed  by  the
remaining category of appellants, do not suggest that  they  are  performing
duty all over the year like any Government servant. There is nothing on  the
record to suggest the  master-servant  relationship.   They  were  appointed
pursuant to Home Guard Rules, 1962 and it is made clear that their  services
are voluntary and will not get any pay but the  duty  allowance  as  may  be
fixed by the State Government from time to time.

      In that view of the matter,  we  hold  that  the  appellants  are  not
entitled  for  regularization  of  service.  Further,  in  absence  of   any
comparison of duties, responsibilities, accountability and status, they  may
not be equated with the Police Constables or personnel to claim parity  with
the pay or scale of pay as provided  to  the  Police  personnel.   The  High
Court  by  the  impugned  judgment  and  orders  rightly  refused  to  grant
regularization of their services. We find no  merit  in  these  appeals  and
they are accordingly dismissed.


..............................................................................
                                                                       ...J.
                                        (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)


..............................................................................
                                                                       ...J.
                               (VIKRAMAJIT SEN)
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 10, 2015.