Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.—Rejoinder-affidavit filed in Writ-A No. 47479 of 2015 is taken on record.

2. On an oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, let petitioner No. 1 of this writ petition be described as Home Guard No. 0384.

3. Necessary amendment shall be incorporated by the learned counsel for the petitioners during course of the day.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

5. Since the issue which has been sought to be adjudicated by this Court in all these petitions is the same, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Court proceeds to decide all these matters by the following common judgment and order.

6. For convenience Writ-A No. 47479 of 2015, Ram Nath Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and others, shall be treated to be the leading writ petition.

7. All these petitions have been filed with the prayer to direct the State-respondents to give the benefit to the petitioners of pay and other benefits equal in amount to the pay and other benefits which are admissible to police personnel in the light of the judgment and order dated 11.3.2015 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of H.P. and others, Civil Appeal No. 2759 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No. 12858 of 2009.

8. In some of the writ petitions yet another prayer has been made for regularizing the services of the petitioners as a regular cadre of Home Guards.

9. In one of the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed that they should be paid regular salary in place of honorarium which is otherwise being paid at present to the Home Guard volunteers.

10. This Court on 24.8.2015 passed an order requiring the learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents to seek instructions in the matter in the light of the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 22 of the judgment in the case of Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of H.P. and others (supra).

11. A counter-affidavit was filed on 16.11.2015 by the State-respondents, whereby a decision taken by an Expert Committee in its meeting held on 14.1.2013 has been annexed. The said Expert Committee in its meeting dated 14.1.2013 appears to have taken a decision for ensuring compliance of the order dated 16.4.2012 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 18839 of 2012, Shri Krishna @ Keshan Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others.

12. The said Expert Committee was constituted by the State Government in terms of the order dated 16.4.2012, passed by this Court in the case of Shri Krishna @ Keshan Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others, Writ A No. 18839 of 2012. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by certain Home Guards alleging therein that they have been discharging practically the same duties as are required to be discharged by any other police constable and as such they are also entitled to be paid atleast minimum of the salary, which is being paid to a regular constable of police force. It is in the background of the aforesaid facts pleaded by the petitioners of Writ -A No. 18839 of 2012 that this Court by means of its order dated 16.4.2012 directed the State Government to constitute an Expert Committee and take decision qua the claim of the petitioners therein.

13. The minutes of meeting of the Expert Committee held on 14.1.2013 have been perused. The said Committee has concluded that the Home Guard volunteers discharge their functions as assistance to the regular police force and thus, it cannot be said that they perform the same duties as are being performed by the members of the regular police force. Referring to the provisions of Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Home Guards Adhiniyam, 1963, the Expert Committee has observed that a Home Guard can be required to serve as auxiliary to the police or to help the regular police in maintaining public order or internal security and further that if th