Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Lavkush Tiwari And Others - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of U.P. And Others - Respondent
Writ - A No. - 18956 of 2022 With Writ - A No. - 5771 of 2023
Decided On : 19-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Aditya Prakash Verma, Shailesh Verma
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
Village Policemen, while performing vital roles, are not entitled to minimum wages equivalent to regular police due to their auxiliary and intermittent nature of employment.
Headnote:(A) North-Western Provinces Village and Road Police Act, 1873 - Repealed by the Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 - Claim for minimum pay scale by Village Policemen - Court examined the historical context and duties of Village Policemen, concluding they do not equate to regular police personnel. Court ruled that the petitioners, while performing important functions, do not have a claim to the same remuneration as regular police due to their auxiliary role and intermittent duties. (Paras 1-58)
(B) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - The petitioners' remuneration of Rs.2500/- per month was deemed inadequate but not unconstitutional, as their work is not continuous or full-time. Court emphasized that the issue of remuneration falls within the executive's policy domain. (Paras 10, 57)
(C) Articles 14, 21, and 23 of the Constitution - No violation found; the remuneration structure does not constitute forced labor. The State is encouraged to consider legislative reforms for Village Policemen's conditions. (Paras 11, 58)
Findings of Court:
The Village Policemen are not enrolled members of the police force and their duties have diminished relevance in modern policing. The State's payment system is not arbitrary but reflects the nature of their employment.
Issues: The main issues were whether Village Policemen are entitled to minimum wages comparable to regular police personnel and the legality of their current remuneration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the Village Policemen perform important roles, their intermittent duties and lack of enrollment in the police force preclude them from claiming equal pay with regular police.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of without granting the requested relief.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and background of village policemen. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners' claim for minimum wages based on historical context and legal provisions. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments regarding the legal status and duties of village policemen. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. discussion on minimum wage rights and relevant supreme court decisions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. state's position on the employment status of village policemen. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 6. court's analysis of village policemen's duties and comparison with modern policing. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. discussion on the relevance of village policemen's duties in contemporary society. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 8. court's consideration of the nature of employment and duties of village policemen. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 9. final observations on the role and remuneration of village policemen. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 10. conclusion of the judgment regarding the petitioners' claims. (Para 58) |
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
1. This judgment will decide the present writ petition and connected Writ-A No.5771 of 2023. Since both the petitions involve common questions of fact and law, the facts and the case of parties shall be noticed from Writ-A No.18956 of 2022, which shall be treated as the leading case.
2. The petitioners are Village Policemen, Chowkidars or Gram Prahari, variously called from time to time, but decidedly appointed to this office of some antiquity under the North- Western Provinces Village and Road Police Act , 1873 (Act No. XVI of 1873) (for short, 'the Act of 1873') and since repealed by the Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 (Act No.4 of 2018) (for short, 'the Amending Act of 2017'). The petitioners are essentially Village Policemen, tracing their origin to a time when the modern police network had yet to gain foothold in the wee days of the British Colonial Government. At that time also, the Act of 1873 contemplated the position of the ‘Village Policemen’ and the ‘Road Policemen’ as extended arms of the regular police establishment in the remote villages, nooks and corners of the State, then called the North-Western Provinces.
3. It appears that the Village Policemen served an important role in the day that this position was created and for a long time thereafter. But, with the march of time, particularly, post independence, big strides in the organization and establishment of the modern police system were made. To add to it, were the great technological advancements in the systems of communication, quick transport and surveillance. All these factors put together, it seems, have made the position of the Village Policemen or the Gram Prahari, as they are now called, more or less rudimentary. Nevertheless, the post has been retained and there are incumbents, who have some duties to perform under the law.
4. The petitioners in the leading case are 1487 in number, and those in the connected matter, 31. Parties in the leading petition have exchanged affidavits. The leading case was admitted to hearing on 27.11.2024, which proceeded forthwith. The connected matter too was heard on 27.11.2024, along with the leading case. Judgment was reserved in both matters.
5. Heard Mr. Aditya Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Giri, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
6. The question involved here is if the Village Policemen are entitled to the grant of minimum pay, to which, the Policemen are entitled in the regular establishment of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is the petitioners’ case that they are working as Village Policemen or Gram Prahari under the State Government for decades. It is illustratively said that petitioner No.2 is working since the year 1987, i.e., almost 37 years. They, therefore, claim that a mandamus
