The Court directed the State to ensure continuous deployment of Home Guards, acknowledging their service as essential and requiring equitable treatment consistent with constitutional rights to livelihood and dignity.

ORDER :

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people - John Adams

GRIEVANCE/PRAYER:-

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [Hereinafter to be referred as “ COI ”] has been preferred by the petitioners, who are seriously aggrieved by the prevailing rotation system of engagement, under which they are offered deployment on a rotational basis. This system effectively restricts their gainful deployment to a maximum period of merely six to eight months in a year, thereby causing severe economic hardship and depriving them of a stable means of livelihood.

FACTS AND BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:-

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the petitioners are discharging their duties as Home Guards in various districts of Rajasthan. Their services, though valuable to the maintenance of public order and safety, are rendered purely on a voluntary basis and are regulated by the provisions of The Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963. [Hereinafter to be referred as “The Act”] The grievance of the petitioners stems from the prevailing “rotation system” adopted by the respondents, under which they are engaged for a meagre period of only six to eight months in a year, and in some instances, even for a shorter duration. For the remaining part of the year, they are left without any work, remuneration, or social security, thereby subjecting them to a state of perpetual economic uncertainty. It is urged that such a system, despite their continuous availability and willingness to serve, not only deprives them of a dignified livelihood but also fails to acknowledge their indispensable role in supplementing the regular police force during law and order exigencies, festivals, elections, and emergencies. The petitioners assert that thisprecarious arrangement amounts to an infringement of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the COI , particularly Articles 14, 16 and 21, and is contrary to the Directive Principles of State Policy, which mandate the State, as a model employer, to ensure just and humane conditions of work and a secure means of livelihood. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rotation system and the perpetual state of uncertainty it entails, the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court by instituting the present petition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the State, being a welfare State, is bound to act as a model employer by ensuring healthy working conditions and providing year-round employment to enable its employees to sustain their families. Contrary to this obligation, the resp