IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (106+263) CM-19348-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-8289-2022 (O&M)

Date of Decision : January 28, 2025 State of Punjab and others .. Petitioners Versus Bhupinder Singh and others .. Respondents (2) CWP-14885-2023 Balwinder Kumar and others .. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents (3) CWP-15040-2023 Shinda and others .. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents (4) CWP-23146-2024 Harbhajan Singh and others .. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the petitioners-State in CWP-8289-2022 and for the respondents-State in CWP-14885-2023, CWP-15040-2023 and CWP-23146-2024.

Mr. Arshit Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-14885-2023, CWP-15040-2023 and CWP-23146-2024.

Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate, for respondent No.1 in CWP-8289-2022.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) CM-19348-CWP-2024 in CWP-8289-2022 Present application has been filed for preponing the date of hearing of the application i.e. CM-719-CWP-2023, which stands adjourned to 28.01.2025.

As the application i.e. CM-719-CWP-2023 is listed for hearing today, application for preponement i.e. CM-19348-CWP-2024 has become infructuous.

CM stands disposed of as infructuous.

CWP-8289-2022 (O&M) & connected cases

1. By this common order, four writ petitions, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being disposed of as all these petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.

2. In the present bunch of writ petitions, the grievance is being raised by the Home Guard Volunteers that they are to be treated as ‘employees’ of the Home Guard Establishment and they are also entitled for the gratuity admissible to them as envisaged under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

3. In CWP-8289-2022, the respondent Bhupinder Singh and others had approached the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and vide order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-1), the benefit of gratuity has been granted to the respondent- Home Guard Volunteers by the controlling authority, which order has been upheld by the Appellate Authority on 24.08.2021 (Annexure P-2), which orders are under challenge in the present petition.

4. In other petitions, the petitioners have straightaway come before this Court for the grant of same benefit as has been allowed in favour of the respondents- Home Guard Volunteers in CWP-8289-2022.

5. The question which arises for the consideration before this Court is whether, the Home Guard Volunteers are to be treated as employee within the definition envisaged under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 keeping in view the provisions of the Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘1947 Act’) as well as Punjab Home Guards Rules, 1963.

6. The question whether, members of the Home Guard Establishment are the employees of the State of Punjab or the said duties are being discharged as a volunteer so as to get the honorarium, is no longer res integra as the same has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing order in RSA No.627 of 2005 titled as Nirmala Devi and others vs. Director, Civil Defence, Home Guards, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, decided on 11.02.2009 wherein, a finding has been recorded that the Home Guard Establishment is a source of employment and the same is a volunteer body where the citizens voluntarily offer their services for the benefit of society and anyone, who is a professional, a Government servant, a person carrying any trade or occupation, or industrial worker, university student etc, who can spare time for the benefit of community can be a member of Home Guard Establishment. After considering the 1947 Act as well as 1963 Rules, a finding was recorded that the Home Guard Organization is a purely voluntary organization and the Home Guards are not entitled for the benefits as admissible to the