Long-term continuous service by volunteers necessitates regularization despite their designation, per the Supreme Court's jurisprudence.

JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J.

As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-9455-2014.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking regularization.

3. The petitioner belongs to Backward Class. He passed middle examination in 1987. He was recruited as Home Guard/Volunteer by respondent on the basis of recruitment trial/test. He was recruited on 18.03.1992 subject to his character verification and medical examination. On the basis of report of character verification and medical examination, he was allowed to join on 06.04.1992. He was subjected to training and thereafter posted at different places. He was holding LTV Driving License and respondent assigned him duty of driver. He worked as Driver from June' 2009 to August' 2014. He thereafter was assigned duty of Gunman of Deputy Battalion Commander. In December' 2012, he participated in the recruitment process of regular Drivers. He could not succeed in the selection process, however, continued to work as Driver/Gunman. At the time of his joining, he was paid salary Rs.40/- per month besides Rs.20/-per month as washing allowance. His salary and washing allowance were revised from time to time. He claimed regularization as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Versus Uma Devi (3) and Others', (2006) 4 SCC 1 and policy framed by State Government. He claimed that he has completed 10 years' service by 10.12.2006.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner was entitled to be regularized as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (Supra) as well as policy framed by State Government. The petitioner has completed requisite number of years, thus, he was eligible for regularization. He had worked continuously without interruption and Court protection. There was no break in his service. His service could not be treated at par with normal Home Guard Volunteer who performed duty, part of the year or part of the month or part of the day. The petitioner performed duty of Driver/Gunman during the entire year. He was discharged in June' 2025 on attaining the age of 58 years. He has worked with respondent without break for three decades, thus, deserves to be regularized.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was appointed as volunteer in terms of Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 (for short '1947 Act') read with Punjab Home Guard Rules, 1963 (in short '1963 Rules'). The nature of service of petitioner was volunteer. He could do private job besides service with respondent. He was undoubtedly engaged for whole of the year, however, his appointment was voluntary in nature. As per compendium of instructions of Home Guards published by Director General, Civil Defence, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, the object of recruiting Home Guards is to meet with emergencies like flood, fire and famine. Any person may join Home Guard Service. Even Government employees or students may join as member of Home Guard.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

7. As per reply filed by respondent, genesis of Home Guards and its role is as below:-

"The Compendium of Instructions of Home Guards published by Directorate General Civil Defence, Ministry of Home Affairs, Gover