‘Exploitation In The Name Of Volunteers’: P&H High Court Slams State, Orders Regularization Of 30-Year Home Guard

Chandigarh, India – In a landmark judgment that challenges the long-standing practice of treating long-serving Home Guards as "volunteers," the Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a scathing critique of the state's employment practices, directing the immediate regularization of a Home Guard who served continuously for nearly three decades. The Court’s decision, rooted in principles of equity and substantive justice, could have far-reaching implications for thousands of similarly situated personnel across the country who perform essential duties without the benefits of permanent employment.

The ruling, delivered by Justice Jagmohan Bansal in the case of HARDEV SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS , dismantles the state's argument that the nature of the petitioner's job was purely voluntary, despite him working full-time without interruption for over 30 years. The Court characterized the state's stance as an "exploitation of citizens in the name of volunteers" and a misuse of the legal concept of voluntary service.

Background of the Case: A Three-Decade Wait for Justice

The case was brought forth by two petitioners who were enlisted as Home Guard Volunteers by the Punjab Government in 1992. The primary petitioner, Gurpal Singh, served as a Driver and Gunman from 1992 until the present, a period spanning more than 30 years. Throughout this extensive tenure, he worked without any break in service and was not subject to any interim court orders that would have artificially extended his service. His plea was simple yet profound: to have his decades of dedicated service recognized through regularization, affording him the same rights and security as other government employees.

The State of Punjab, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, vehemently opposed the plea. The government’s core argument rested on the premise that the Home Guard is a voluntary organization. Citing the compendium of instructions from the Home Department and the governing Act, the state contended that the role is not a conventional "job" but a form of voluntary contribution from citizens. They argued that students, businessmen, and even existing government employees could join, and the remuneration provided was merely an "honorarium," not a salary, thereby precluding any claim for regularization.

The Court's Scrutiny: Deconstructing the "Volunteer" Myth

Justice Jagmohan Bansal systematically dismantled the state’s defense, focusing on the substantive reality of the petitioner’s service rather than the superficial label of "volunteer." The Court established a clear and practical test to distinguish between genuine voluntary work and de facto employment.

In a powerful observation, Justice Bansal articulated the difference: "A member who is working for part of the day or part of the month or part of the year and doing some other job for his livelihood may be called as volunteer, however, a man who is working entire day and without interruption for three decades cannot be called as volunteer."

The Court delved into the socio-economic context of the country, highlighting the absurdity of the state's position. "In a country where there is scarcity of job and poverty is writ large, it cannot be assumed that a man would work for decades for the entire day as a volunteer," the judgment noted. This crucial point reframes the issue from one of mere legal semantics to one of economic reality and human dignity.

The Court found several factual indicators that proved the petitioner was, for all intents and purposes, a full-time employee:

• Continuous and Uninterrupted Service: The petitioner worked for over three decades without any break, indicating a consistent and ongoing need for his services by the state.
• Nature of Duties: Serving as a Driver/Gunman was a full-time responsibility, making it practically impossible for the petitioner to pursue any other form of livelihood.
• Remuneration as Salary: The "honorarium" paid to the petitioner was equivalent to the minimum pay scale of a Constable and included other benefits like a washing allowance. The Court concluded that this was remuneration for services rendered, not a token payment for voluntary work.
• Legitimate Appointment: The petitioner's initial appointment was not a "backdoor entry," further strengthening his claim to legitimate employment status.

Based on these facts, the Court concluded that the state was attempting to "misinterpret as well as misuse" the concept of voluntary service to deny the petitioner his rightful benefits.

Legal and Constitutional Implications: A Blow Against Unfair Labour Practices

This judgment is a significant pronouncement on the principles of equity and non-discrimination in public employment. The Court drew a sharp parallel between the petitioner's situation and that of other Class III and IV employees in different government departments who are regularly granted regularization after completing ten years of service.

"It would be unjustified and unfair if Class IV or III employees of all other departments are regularized on the basis of service of more than ten years but members of Home Guard are denied said benefit on the ground that they are volunteers," the Court asserted. This reasoning strikes at the heart of arbitrary classification and reinforces the constitutional mandate of equal treatment.

For legal practitioners specializing in service law, this decision provides a robust precedent to challenge the non-regularization of personnel in auxiliary forces like Home Guards, Civil Defence, and Special Police Officers (SPOs). The judgment shifts the onus onto the state to prove that such long-term, full-time work is genuinely "voluntary" in nature, a standard that will be difficult to meet in most cases. It underscores the judicial principle that courts must look beyond nomenclature to the actual substance of the employment relationship.

The Final Verdict and a Directive to the State

Finding the state's arguments wholly untenable, the High Court ruled decisively in favor of the petitioner, Gurpal Singh. It held that he is entitled to be regularized and issued a clear directive to the respondent state government.

The Court ordered the State of Punjab to pass an appropriate order of regularization within six months from the date of the judgment. In a move to ensure compliance and prevent further delay, the Court added a default clause: if the state fails to issue the order within the stipulated period, Gurpal Singh "shall be deemed to be regularized on the expiry of said period."

This decisive order not only grants relief to a man who gave his entire working life to the service of the state but also sends an unequivocal message to government authorities: the guise of "volunteerism" cannot be used as a tool to perpetuate an exploitative and precarious system of employment.