IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework and parameters for its application, as established in various legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The State has come up with this original petition aggrieved by the direction in an application filed by the respondents who are Home Guards working in the State, challenging a government order repelling the request for parity in pay with that of Police Constable in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Home Guards Welfare Assn. v. State of H.P. [ (2015) 6 SCC 247] (for short, the ‘Grah Rakshak case’)

2. The Tribunal granted the following reliefs:

i. Home Guards in the State are entitled to periodical revision of wages in tune with the pay revision orders issued from time to time.

ii. Home Guards are entitled for monthly wages equal to the minimum wage of the scale of pay attached to the post of Civil Police Officer.

3. The Home Guards are currently engaged on a daily wage basis. The State enacted the Kerala Home Guards Act, 1960 for use in emergencies and for other purposes in the State of Kerala. The Government also established Home Guard Rules to regulate the engagement of Home Guards. Based on these Act and Rules, the Government issued an order dated 26/11/2009 implementing a scheme for the engagement of Home Guards. The maximum number of Home Guards personnel has been limited to 3000. Home Guards can be utilized for enumerated purposes in which includes fire fighting, rescue operations, traffic control and regulation etc. As per the Government order dated 26/11/2009, Home Guards will be entitled to a stipend of Rs.250/- per day for each day of duty and they will not be eligible for any other allowances like TA/DA etc. However, they will be entitled to an allowance for uniforms.

4. In the Grah Rakshak case (supra), the Apex Court considered a question involving Home Guards from the State of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and NCT of Delhi. The question that was considered was whether they should be regularised in the service or not. The Apex Court was of the view that they are not entitled for regularisation and ordered as follows:

22. In view of the discussion made above, no relief can be granted to the appellants either regularization of services or grant of regular appointments hence no interference is called for against the judgments passed by the Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Delhi High Courts. However, taking into consideration the fact that Home Guards are used during the emergency and for other purposes and at the time of their duty they are empowered with the power of police personnel, we are of the view that the State Government should pay them the duty allowance at such rates, total of which 30 days (a month) comes to minimum of the pay to which the police personnel of State are entitled. It is expected that the State Governments shall pass appropriate orders in terms of aforesaid observation on an early date preferably within three months.

5. The Union Government, taking note of the above directions, also issued directions to the State Government to revise the pay. The State Government enhanced their pay from Rs.750/- per day, that was prevalent in the year 2019 to Rs. 780/- per day, subject to a maximum monthly pay of Rs.21,060/-. The respondent applicant, not satisfied with the enhancement, raised a representation before the Government. The Tribunal directed the Government to consider the representation. The Government, noting that they had already increased and revised their pay, was of the opinion that there is no further scope for revision. This decision was further challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal granted orders as above. The Tribunal while passing the order, apart from relying on the judgment in Graha Rakshak case (supra) also relied on the judgment in Annexure A16 Prakash Kumar Jena v. The State of Odisha [2023 Livelaw SC 213] for granting reliefs. We shall now advert to Graha Rakshak case. It is to be noted that the Apex Court had not adjudicated that the Home Guards shall be treated at par with Police Constables or Civil Police Officers. The principle of “equal