Page 1

1

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

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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:

Page 4

4

(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.

Page 5

5

(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

Page 6

6

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

Page 7

7

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

Page 8

8

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.

(i) There  is  no  salary,  retirement  benefits  like  pension etc.

(ii) There is no regular cadre.

(iii) 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

Page 9

9

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.

Page 10

10

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

Page 11

11

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

Page 12

12

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

Page 13

13

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.

Page 14

14

(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

Page 15

15

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

Page 16

16

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

Page 17

17

par  with  other  organisations  like  the  army,  paramilitary organisations or the civil police.

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

Page 18

18

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.