The main legal point established in the judgment is that the home guards are a voluntary organization with no statutory rights and obligations, and their services cannot be directed to be regularized. The court also upheld the validity of the termination of service of the home guards in accordance with Rule 8.

( 1 ) WHETHER the home guards appointed under the Bombay Home guards Act are holders of civil services and whether their services can be directed to be regularized, are the questions involved in these proceedings filed by the writ petitioners.

( 2 ) THE petitioners were enrolled as home guards for a period of three years. On completion of the said period, they were discharged from service. According to them, they had served as home guards for a long period and as such, they having become civil servants are entitled to regularization with effect from the date of their respective enrolment.

( 3 ) THE petitioners filed Original Applications claiming regularization of their services as also for their reinstatement upon setting aside the orders of discharge.

( 4 ) THE respondents contention, however, is that the relationship of master and servant by and between them and the petitioners never existed. The writ petitioners are volunteers who are called upon during emergency to assist the enforcement agency and are paid subsistence allowance and parade allowance out of the contingent funds.

( 5 ) HOME Guards, according to the respondents, is a voluntary organization with motto of niskam Sewa having no statutory rights and obligations.

( 6 ) THE learned Tribunal, having regard to its various decisions as also the High Court and the Supreme Court, as noticed in para 7 of the impugned judgment, held:

"8. In the afore-stated cases cited by the learned counsel of the respondents, it was held that the petitioner-Home Guards could not be given any relief and the Home-Guards being volunteers were not entitled to regularization. In the case of Raj kamal (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissing the SLP held that the representation must be made to the Government and not to the Court. The mere fact that after the expiry of the term of three years some Home Guards personnel were allowed to continue in the service could not by itself entitle them to additional benefits than what they would have been otherwise entitled to had they been discharged on the expiry of the initial period of three years. In the case of Rameshwar Dass Sharma (supra) their Lordships have held as follows :

". . . . . the Home Guards who are ordinarily demobed Army personnel are employed on the basis of temporary need from time to time and in case they are called back to do work with arms in hands, they are paid at the rate of Rs. 30. 00 per day on the basis of eight hours working during the day, or otherwise they are paid at the rate of Rs. 151- per day. Petitioner, according to the respondent, being an employee under this system cannot ask for regularization. In such circumstances, we do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any relief. We have impressed upon learned counsel, however, to find out from the home Guard Organisation if in any manner, the petitioner can be accommodated in a limited way. The special leave petition and the interlocutory application are disposed of accordingly. "

IN the case of Man Sukh Lal Rawal (supra), the Hon ble High Court while dismissing the writ petition expected of the respondents to be alive to this situation and to frame a transparent and workable policy within a period of six months. In the case of Raj Kumar (supra) the Hon ble High court did not find any reason to interfere with the decision of this Tribunal and dismissed the petition. "

( 7 ) ON the afore-mentioned findings, the Original Applications filed by the petitioners herein were dismissed. Dr. J. C. Madan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would contend that having regard to the provisions of the Bombay home Guards Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it must be held that there existed a relationship of master and servant by and between the respondents and the petitioners herein inasmuch as the respondents had the power of superintendence and control over the petitioners. The learned counsel would also contend that the Home Guards