SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
GRAH RAKSHAK, HOME GUARDS WEL.ASSO. – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P. & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2759 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12858 2009) WITH C.A. No. 2760 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 16499/2013) C.A. No. 2761 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 17050/2013) C.A. Nos. 2762-2764 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 17639-17641/2013) C.A. No. 2765 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 18161/2013) C.A. No. 2766 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 18803/2013) C.A. No. 2767 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 19031/2013) C.A. No. 2768 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 19065/2013) C.A. No. 2769 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 19096/2013) C.A. No. 2770 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 19319/2013) C.A. Nos. 2771-2772 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 19454-19455/2013) C.A. No. 2773 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 19499/2013) C.A. Nos. 2774-2775 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 19509-19510/2013) C.A. No. 2776 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 19537/2013) C.A. Nos. 2777-2780 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 19844-19847/2013) C.A. No. 2781 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 20021/2013) C.A. Nos. 2782-2783 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 20502-20503/2013) C.A. No. 2784 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 20898/2013) C.A. No. 2785 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 20900/2013) C.A. No. 2786 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 20904/2013) C.A. No. 2787 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 21031/2013) C.A. No. 2788 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 21032/2013) C.A. No. 2789 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 21033/2013) C.A. No. 2790 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 22519/2013) C.A. No. 2791 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 22678/2013) C.A. Nos.2792-2793 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 24300-24301/2013) C.A. No. 2794 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 25848/2013) C.A. No. 2796 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 26450/2013) C.A. No. 2797 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 30873/2013) C.A. No. 2798 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 31132/2013) C.A. No. 2799 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 34646/2013) C.A. No. 2800 of 2015 (@SLP(C) No. 39346/2013)
Decided on: 11-03-2015
(2003) 6 SCC 469; (2007) 10 SCC 544; (2009) 14 SCC 173 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The appellants herein are individuals who are Home Guards of States of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and National Capital of Territory of Delhi. They and their Association moved before High Courts in their respective States seeking regularization of their services by filing writ petitions. The judgments and orders impugned herein are those passed by the High Courts in such writ petitions. By the impugned judgments and orders, the High Courts dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
The questions involved in these appeals are whether Home Guards of States of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and N.C.T of Delhi are regular appointees in the cadre/services of Home Guards and if not whether they are entitled for regularization of their services.
Finding of the Court:
No interference is warranted.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
Judgment
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
Delay condoned. Applications for deletion of proforma respondents, substitution and permission to file SLP are allowed. Leave granted.
2. As these appeals involve a common question of law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The appellants herein are individuals who are Home Guards of States of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and National Capital of Territory of Delhi (‘N.C.T of Delhi’ for short). They and their Association moved before High Courts in their respective States seeking regularization of their services by filing writ petitions. The judgments and orders impugned herein are those passed by the High Courts in such writ petitions. By the impugned judgments and orders, the High Courts dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
4. The questions involved in these appeals are whether Home Guards of States of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and N.C.T of Delhi are regular appointees in the cadre/services of Home Guards and if not whether they are entitled for regularization of their services.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants have taken the plea that the appellants are working as Home Guards without any break for about 10 to 30 years. Inspite of the same, they were not given any benefits available to regular employees. They have neither been granted regular pay scale, nor have their services regularized.
6. Per contra, according to learned counsels for the States, the appellants were appointed as Home Guards volunteers, working on honorary basis and hence are entitled only for duty allowance as per the schemes i.e. Acts and Rules framed for the said purpose.
7. For determination of the issues, it is necessary to notice the ‘Genesis’ of Home Guards Organization and relevant provisions of Acts and Rules framed by different States with regard to Home Guards Organization.
8. 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.”
9. Himachal Pradesh – Home Guards
Prior to reorganization of the State of Himachal Pradesh i.e. 1st November, 1966, the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947 was in force in some
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.