Long-Serving Home Guards Entitled to Subsistence Allowance During Suspension: Punjab & Haryana High Court - 2025-01-10

Upholding Dignity: HC Mandates Subsistence Pay for Long-Serving Home Guards

In a landmark ruling that reinforces the constitutional right to live with dignity, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has declared that Home Guards who have completed at least 10 years of continuous service are entitled to subsistence allowance while under suspension. The decision brings vital relief to a workforce long considered "volunteers" and often left without financial support during disciplinary proceedings.

The Backdrop: A Plea for Financial Survival

The case centered on Mahinder Ram, a Home Guard member since 1992, who was suspended in 2019 following a case registered by the Vigilance Department. For over five years, the petitioner remained in a state of professional limbo without pay, eventually leading to his dismissal in October 2024. While the court declined to interfere with the merits of his dismissal, it turned its focus to the question of whether a long-serving Home Guard, suspended without salary, is entitled to a subsistence allowance to survive.

The respondents, representing the Punjab Home Guards, argued that Home Guards are volunteers, not regular employees, and are paid daily allowances rather than salaries. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Wel. Association v. State of H.P. , the State contended that there is no statutory provision for subsistence pay for volunteers.

The Court’s Reasoning: Beyond Statutory Labels

Justice Jagmohan Bansal dismantled the rigid classification of Home Guards as mere "volunteers" when they demonstrate years of uninterrupted service. Highlighting the stark reality of the petitioner, who worked for 27 years, the Court noted that denying financial support to such individuals is inhumane and unconstitutional.

Drawing heavily from the principles of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the Court observed that suspension does not erase the employer-employee relationship.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores that constitutional mandate supersedes the absence of specific departmental rules:

• On the right to live with dignity: "Denial of subsistence allowance would be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
• On the nature of work: "This Court is of the considered opinion that it would be unjustified, unfair and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India to deny subsistence allowance to the petitioner who uninterruptedly had worked with the respondent for 27 years."
• On the status of long-term volunteers: "Every member of Home Guard who without interruption had already worked for more than 10 years should be paid subsistence allowance. He cannot be denied said allowance on the ground that he is not a permanent or regular employee."
• On custodial duty regarding rights: "Constitutional Courts are custodian of fundamental rights and right to live like a human being is part of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India."

The Verdict: A Beacon for Future Cases

The High Court ordered the respondents to pay a subsistence allowance of ₹10,000 per month from the date of the petitioner's suspension until his date of dismissal. This payment is mandated within three months, failing which an interest rate of 9% per annum will apply.

Crucially, the judgment establishes a prospective precedent: while it does not mandate pay for every volunteer, it creates a crucial safety net for any Home Guard who has uninterruptedly completed at least 10 years of service. By looking through the lens of human rights rather than mere bureaucratic classification, the Court has ensured that those who serve the state for decades are not abandoned during their most vulnerable periods.