Back
2015 Supreme(SC) 460
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Vikramajit Sen, JJ.
Jiban Krishna Mondal and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of West Bengal and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6373, 6374 and 6375 of 2010, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 of 2015
Decided On: 10.03.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sushil Kumar Jain, Vijay Hansaria, Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Advs., Shekhar Kumar, Rauf Rahim, S.K. Verma, Ajay Veer Singh Jain,Puneet Jain, Atul Aggarwal, Divya Garg, U.R. Bokadia, Ajit Jain, Ajay Kumar Jain, Irshad Hanif, B.K. Gupta, S.K. Gupta, M.K. Singh, B.P. Gupta, Debashree Saikia, Avnish Pandey, Ghanshyam Joshi, F.I. Choudhury, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, P.K. Dey, Andleeb Naqvi, Abhijeet Singh, Vijay Pal Singh and Kailash Chand, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Mukul Rohtagi, AG, Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv., Anip Sachthey, Mohit Paul, Saakaar Sarnana, Shreekant N. Terdal, Avijit Bhattacharjee, V. Mohana, Sadhana Sandhu, Kabir Hathi, R.K. Verma and Sushma Suri, Advs.
Headnote:
West Bengal Home Guards Act, 1962 - West Bengal Home Guards Rules, 1962 - Police Act, 1861 - West Bengal Home Guards Act, 1990 - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Equal salary - Members of Home Guards - Claim of compensation - Appellants took plea before High Court that members of West Bengal Home Guards are in services of State performing same duty like police constables who are Government employees - They are also entitled for regularization of their services and regular pay at par with police personnel - Aforesaid plea taken by Appellants were opposed by State of West Bengal and Union of India - According to them members of West Bengal Home Guards are volunteers who are neither employees of State nor entitled for regular scale of pay and hence question of regularization of their services does not arise - Held, Concept of Home Guards was of a voluntary citizen force as auxiliary to police for maintaining law and order and for meeting emergencies like floods fires famine etc and for civil defense - A Careful perusal of genesis of Home Guards and its role will show that 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 Home Guards to be called as and when need arises - Majority of Appellants has attained maximum age and are no more members of Home Guards - Appointment letters enclosed by remaining category of Appellants do not suggest that they are performing duty all over year like any Government servant - There is nothing on record to suggest 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 duty allowance as may be fixed by State Government from time to time - Appeal dismissed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The Appellants, members of the West Bengal Home Guards, contended that they are in the service of the State, performing duties similar to police constables who are government employees, and thus are entitled to regularization and pay parity with police personnel (!) .
-
The State of West Bengal and Union of India argued that the members of the Home Guards are volunteers, not employees, and therefore not entitled to regular pay or benefits. They emphasized that the organization was always intended to be voluntary and auxiliary to police, with no master-servant relationship established (!) (!) .
-
The High Court initially accepted the Appellants' plea, directing the State to provide salary and allowances comparable to police personnel. However, on appeal, the Division Bench clarified that the members are volunteers and highlighted that the organization was meant to be voluntary in nature, with benefits being extended as a matter of discretion and not as a right (!) .
-
The Court observed that the organization of Home Guards was always intended to be voluntary, with members enrolled in an honorary capacity, and their services are called out only when needed. The services are not continuous or akin to regular government employment (!) (!) .
-
The legal relationship between the members and the State was determined to be that of volunteers, not employees, with no master-servant relationship established. The organization is meant for emergency and auxiliary purposes, not as a regular employment scheme (!) (!) .
-
The amendments to the West Bengal Home Guards Act clarified the voluntary nature of the service, explicitly stating that members are enrolled as volunteers in an honorary capacity. These amendments are considered to be clarificatory and retrospective in effect (!) (!) (!) .
-
The services rendered by the Appellants do not qualify them for regularization or pay parity with police personnel, especially since most have attained the maximum age and are no longer active members. Their appointment was pursuant to rules that specify their roles as voluntary and unpaid, with only duty allowances paid when called out for duty (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Overall, the Court upheld that the organization and the members' roles are fundamentally voluntary, and they do not possess the status of employees or civil servants, hence are not entitled to claim regularization or parity in pay scales (!) .
Please let me know if you require a detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this document.
Judgment
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. 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)
