‘Call Off’ System for Home Guards Illegal; Must Be Employed Year-Round, Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-26

Latest Legal Developments.

MP High Court Strikes Down "Call Off" Practice for Home Guards, Orders Year-Round Duty

JABALPUR, MP — In a landmark decision providing major relief to thousands of Home Guard Sainiks, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has declared the state's practice of "calling off" personnel for two months without pay illegal. A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, ruled that while the Home Guards cannot be regularized or equated with police constables under current rules, they must be employed throughout the year.

The court set aside all "call off" orders, directing that the Sainiks be deemed on "call out" duty continuously and receive all consequential pay and allowances.

Background of the Dispute

The judgment was delivered on a large batch of writ petitions and appeals filed by Home Guard Sainiks challenging the controversial "call off" system. Under this practice, based on Rule 27(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Home Guards Rules, 2016, Sainiks were mandatorily sent off duty for two months (initially every year, later amended to two months in every three years), during which they received no salary.

The petitioners argued that this system was arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. They contended that they perform duties similar to regular police personnel and that the "call off" system leaves them and their families in financial distress. They also challenged the constitutionality of Section 7(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1947, and Rule 27 of the 2016 Rules, seeking regularization of their services and parity with police constables.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioners' Stance : The Sainiks' counsel argued that the "call off" system was a relic of a time when Home Guards were a purely voluntary force for emergencies. However, with time, their role has become integral to daily policing and security, making the two-month forced unemployment unjustifiable. They pointed to a 2011 High Court judgment in the Homeguard Sainik Evam Pariwar Kalyan Sangh case, which had explicitly directed the state to "do away with the principle of calling of."

• State's Defense : The State Government, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, defended the system as a policy decision rooted in the voluntary nature of the Home Guard service. It argued that Home Guards are not regular government employees and thus cannot claim benefits like continuous employment. The state maintained that the statutory provisions were constitutional and that courts should not interfere in policy matters.

Court's Decisive Reasoning

The High Court meticulously dismantled the state's arguments by distinguishing between the concepts of "Call Out" and "Call Off." The bench observed that the governing Act and Rules only provide for "calling out" Home Guards from a reserve force as and when needed. The judgment noted:

"We may note that there is no concept of ‘Call Off’ in the Act or the Rules. The concept is of ‘Call Out’. ‘Call Out’ implies that as and when there is a necessity, the Competent Authority shall ‘Call Out’ the Volunteer Home Guards... However, what the respondents are doing is that the Volunteer home Guards are deemed to be on permanent ‘Call Out’ but for two months are put on ‘Call Off’."

The court found the state's practice to be a misinterpretation of the law. It further highlighted a critical factual point: against a sanctioned strength of 15,800 Home Guards, only 9,438 are currently serving. This means the force is operating at just 59% of its capacity. As Rule 21 permits calling out up to 90% of the strength, the court concluded there was no practical or legal justification for sending any personnel on a forced break.

Referring to the earlier 2011 ruling, the bench emphasized that the direction to abolish the "call off" system had attained finality, as the state's subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court only challenged the pay-related directions, not the order to end the "call off" practice.

Final Verdict and Its Implications

The High Court delivered a multi-faceted verdict:

• Constitutional Validity Upheld : The challenge to the validity of Section 7(2) of the Home Guards Act and Rule 27 of the Rules was negated. The court found the statutory framework itself to be constitutional.
• "Call Off" Struck Down : The court held that the practice of "calling off" Sainiks is illegal. All such orders were set aside, and the Home Guards are to be on duty throughout the year.
• No Regularization or Parity : The plea for treating Home Guards at par with police employees and regularizing their services was rejected, as it falls outside the current statutory scheme.
• Retirement Age : The court declined to issue a mandamus to increase the retirement age to 62 but left it open for the state government to consider.

This judgment provides immediate financial security to thousands of Home Guard Sainiks and clarifies the legal framework governing their employment, ensuring they are not subjected to arbitrary periods of unemployment while the state continues to face a shortage of security personnel.