Continuous service of Home Guards transforms their status from volunteers to de facto employees, entitling them to equal pay and benefits under constitutional principles.

ORDER :

Arun Monga, J.

1. The Home Guards serving in the State of Rajasthan, through this class action petition, are before this Court, inter alia, with the grievance that though they are termed as ‘volunteers’, but the said label is a mere facade. In reality, their continuous, uninterrupted service spanning between 5 to 20 years (on non- rotational basis without the 3 monthly break) makes it amply evident that they are volunteers no more but de facto conscripts. Their status, they contend, must be recognized in accordance with the ground realities of their enduring the regular service being rendered by them.

2. With 52,453 posts of Group-C and D now slated to be filled in Rajasthan, the Home Guards seek preferential consideration in the recruitment process. Through judicial intervention they seek a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to create a special category for them in the recruitment process.

CASE SET UP IN THE PETITION

3. Petitioner is the Member/Secretary of Home Guard Samanvay Samiti, has filed this petition, inter alia, for directions to the respondents to provide age relaxation/bonus/other kind of weightage or by reserving certain number of posts for the Home Guards while filling the 52,453 posts of Group-C and D notified or to be notified vide Annexure-4; to frame Rule, policy or guidelines for betterment /regularization/upgradation of the Home Guards by giving them quota/reservation/relaxation against the regular Group-C and D posts notified from time to time by the State Government by making the provisions in respective Rules.

4. The Home Guards in the State are governed by the Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 and the Rajasthan Home Guards Rules of 1962. (To be noted here that these Rules had been framed under the Rajasthan Home Guards Ordinance, 1962 which Ordinance was repealed by the 1963 Act ibid). Under Rule 17 thereof, the Home Guards are performing various kinds of duties which are more than what is regularly performed by Group- D/MTS/Group-C & D employees i.e. to help maintaining the law and order to meet out the civil emergencies in abnormal calamities, to provide the nucleus of auxiliary rescue, communication and ambulance services to operate the transport, communication, electricity, water and other essential services viz. to assist social welfare scheme, to perform other duties which are assigned by the Director General or by the Government in changed circumstances.

5. It is pleaded that the honorarium paid to the Home Guards is grossly inadequate. Not only that, they are subjected to perform duties for 12 hours in a day, which is more than the duty tenure of 10 AM to 5 PM with two days weekly holiday for fully employed Government servants. There is no holiday or vacation for the Home Guards. Various other States have made provisions for betterment of the Home Guards by providing them reservation, relaxation in age limit, bonus marks to compete with candidates from open market and get selected. In Rajasthan, there are no such provisions.

6. Earlier, the petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No.3095/2020 before this Court seeking equal pay for equal work. It was allowed to the extent that the petitioner was directed to be paid wages at the minimum pay scale applicable to the post of Constable. However, the effect and operation thereof has been stayed by Division Bench order dated 25.10.2024 in an intra-court appeal SAW No. 234/2024.

DEFENCE SET UP IN REPLY TO OPPOSE THE PETITION

7. Preliminary objections, seeking dismissal of the petition, inter alia, are as under :

(i) This Court has already passed an order dated 27.01.2025 in SBCWP No. 11085/2022 Hari Shankar Acharya & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. directing the State Government to constitute a Committee for the redressal of grievances of the petitioner- Home Guards in that case in regard to their regular duty, pay and other claims. The State Government has already complied with that order and constituted a Committee. If the petitioner in presen