Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kuldeep Parasar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:17885) on 27 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:17885]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21500/2024
Kuldeep Parasar S/o Shri Ram Niwas Parasar, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Near Bansiwale Mandir, Nagaur (Rajasthan) For And
On Behalf Of Home Gaurd Samanvay Sammittee, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Secretary, Department Of Home,
Secretariat, Jaipur-302005 (Rajasthan).
2. Director General And Commandant General Of Home
Guard, Plot No. 4/1/10-11 Sector-4, Vidhyadhar Nagar,
Jaipur-302039 (Rajasthan)
3. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Lal Kothi,
Jaipur-302015 (Rajasthan).
4. Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur-
302005 (Rajasthan).
.... Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Godara.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with
Mr. Sanwar Lal.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
27/03/2025
1. The Home Guards serving in the State of Rajasthan, through
this class action petition, are before this Court, inter alia, with the
grievance that though they are termed as ‘volunteers’, but the
said label is a mere façade. In reality, their continuous,
uninterrupted service spanning between 5 to 20 years (on non-
rotational basis without the 3 monthly break) makes it amply
evident that they are volunteers no more but de facto conscripts.
Their status, they contend, must be recognized in accordance with
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (2 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
the ground realities of their enduring the regular service being
rendered by them.
2. With 52,453 posts of Group-C and D now slated to be filled
in Rajasthan, the Home Guards seek preferential consideration in
the recruitment process. Through judicial intervention they seek a
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to
create a special category for them in the recruitment process.
CASE SET UP IN THE PETITION
3. Petitioner is the Member/Secretary of Home Guard
Samanvay Samiti, has filed this petition, inter alia, for directions
to the respondents to provide age relaxation/bonus/other kind of
weightage or by reserving certain number of posts for the Home
Guards while filling the 52,453 posts of Group-C and D notified or
to be notified vide Annexure-4; to frame Rule, policy or guidelines
for betterment /regularization/upgradation of the Home Guards by
giving them quota/reservation/relaxation against the regular
Group-C and D posts notified from time to time by the State
Government by making the provisions in respective Rules.
4. The Home Guards in the State are governed by the
Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 and the Rajasthan Home
Guards Rules of 1962. (To be noted here that these Rules had
been framed under the Rajasthan Home Guards Ordinance, 1962
which Ordinance was repealed by the 1963 Act ibid). Under Rule
17 thereof, the Home Guards are performing various kinds of
duties which are more than what is regularly performed by Group-
D/MTS/Group-C & D employees i.e. to help maintaining the law
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (3 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
and order to meet out the civil emergencies in abnormal
calamities, to provide the nucleus of auxiliary rescue,
communication and ambulance services to operate the transport,
communication, electricity, water and other essential services viz.
to assist social welfare scheme, to perform other duties which are
assigned by the Director General or by the Government in
changed circumstances.
5. It is pleaded that the honorarium paid to the Home Guards is
grossly inadequate. Not only that, they are subjected to perform
duties for 12 hours in a day, which is more than the duty tenure of
10 AM to 5 PM with two days weekly holiday for fully employed
Government servants. There is no holiday or vacation for the
Home Guards. Various other States have made provisions for
betterment of the Home Guards by providing them reservation,
relaxation in age limit, bonus marks to compete with candidates
from open market and get selected. In Rajasthan, there are no
such provisions.
6. Earlier, the petitioner had also filed Writ Petition
No.3095/2020 before this Court seeking equal pay for equal work.
It was allowed to the extent that the petitioner was directed to be
paid wages at the minimum pay scale applicable to the post of
Constable. However, the effect and operation thereof has been
stayed by Division Bench order dated 25.10.2024 in an intra-court
appeal SAW No. 234/2024.
DEFENCE SET UP IN REPLY TO OPPOSE THE PETITION
7. Preliminary objections, seeking dismissal of the petition,
inter alia, are as under :
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (4 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
(i) This Court has already passed an order dated
27.01.2025 in SBCWP No. 11085/2022 Hari Shankar
Acharya & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. directing the State
Government to constitute a Committee for the
redressal of grievances of the petitioner- Home Guards
in that case in regard to their regular duty, pay and
other claims. The State Government has already
complied with that order and constituted a Committee.
If the petitioner in present case has any grievance, he
can approach the said Committee and no separate
direction is needed in the instant case.
(ii) The State of Rajasthan has issued various
administrative orders to improve the service conditions
of Home Guards, whose role has long been recognized
as purely voluntary and in support for law enforcement
and other governmental activities. Their engagement,
however, is fundamentally different from regular
government employment, as it does not establish a
permanent employment relationship or entitlement to
the same service rules or benefits on parity with
regular employees. The determination of reservation
policies and recruitment norms falls exclusively within
the State’s prerogative, aligning decisions with socio-
economic, administrative, and legislative
considerations. The provision of reservations or bonus
marks in recruitment is rooted in Constitutional and
legislative frameworks intended to redress historical
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (5 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
injustices and uplift marginalized communities through
carefully evaluated socio-economic assessments.
Extending such measures to Home Guards, who serve
voluntarily without facing systematic disadvantages,
would undermine the purpose of these policies and
disrupt principles of fairness and meritocracy in public
employment. The claim that Home Guards have
suffered injustice due to the absence of reservations or
bonus marks is unfounded, as the voluntary nature of
their service and corresponding honorarium are clearly
communicated at the time of enrollment, and welfare
measures like periodic increases in honorarium have
been implemented. Granting them such benefits in
regular recruitment would not only lack legal and
factual basis but also set a precarious precedent
contrary to Constitutional principles, societal needs,
and administrative priorities.
DEFENCE ON MERITS
8. On merits, it is pleaded by respondents in their reply that no
Group-C or Group-D vacancies for recruitment have been
announced by the Home Guard department. The service of the
Home Guards is voluntary and cannot be compared with the
regular Government employees’ or nature of their service. The
honorarium given to the Home Guard volunteers has been revised
from time to time. At present, the honorarium given to them is as
under:
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (6 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
(a) A Home Guard is generally deployed for eight hours a
day.
(b) For eight hours’ duty, they are given honorarium of Rs.
877/- per day. If deployed as a class-IV employee, the
honorarium given is Rs. 747/- per day.
(c) Uniform allowance of Rs. 75/- maximum per month.
(d) Cycle allowance of Rs. 20/- per day, if they are
deployed beyond 8 kms from their place of residence.
8.1. The honorarium provided to the Home Guards is sufficient. It
is averred that on 11.08.2023, the State Government amended
Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Home Guards Rule, 1962 extending the
renewal period of the Home Guards upto 15 years. Prior thereto,
on 01.06.2021 the State Government even extended the age limit
of members of the Home Guard from 55 to 58 years. Form time to
time, the honorarium of the Home Guards is also raised. The
orders/decisions related to the States of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar
Pradesh, Uttrakhand referred to and relied up by the petitioner
cannot be applied in the State of Rajasthan as the facts and
circumstances and the Rule position are different and, there is no
parity.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
9. In light of the aforementioned rival stands, I shall now
proceed to address the same by recording my reasons and
discussion in the subsequent part hereinafter.
10. At the outset, it may be noted that there is an absence of
clarity in the petition with respect to the specific details pertaining
to the exact nature of services (whether group C or D?) rendered
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (7 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
by the Home Guards, as also the uninterrupted length of service
rendered by those on whose behalf the petition has been filed
(though it is claimed that many of them have been in continuous
service without any break for as long as 10 to 20 years). Having
realized the folly, subsequent to the filing of the petition, the
petitioner has placed on record an additional affidavit dated
19.01.2025, along with certain illustrative documents, to show
that some of the Home Guards are/have been working
continuously for several years without any break. The relevant
paragraphs of the affidavits dated 19.01.2025 are reproduced
here in below:-
“Additional Affidavit dated 19.01.2025:
2. That for perusal of this Hon’ble High Court it is relevant to
submit that some of the members of the Home Guards Union are
discharging the duties since more than 20 years and many are
discharging the duties since more than 10 years at par with Group-
C employees on the post of Group-C/ cadre in different departments.
Rather it can be said that no department is left out of the State
Government in which the Home Guards are not performing the
duties at par with Group-C employees. For perusal of this Hon’ble
Court some of the orders are being placed on record by which
services of Home Guards are utilized against Group-C post.
3. That Jail department utilizing the services of the Home Guards on
the post of Prahari as per letter dated 30.05.2024, Grah Raksha
Department on the post of Arkashi i.e. Constable vide letter dated
10.08.2023, Home department on the post of Constable as per letter
dated 16.04.2024, Anti Corruption department on the post of driver
as per letter dated 04.11.2024 the police department utilizing the
services of the home guards as Constable for maintaining night gast
and traffic management vide letter dated 27.12. 2024, Home Guard
department is utilizing the duties of home guards on the post of
driver vide letter dated 31.12.2024 and further department of Forest
is also utilizing the services of home guards on the post of driver as
per letter dated 05.04.2024 and earlier on one occasions one home
guard was appointed directly on the post of Police Constable vide
order dated 25.03.1992 That in view of above it is evident that
almost in all the department the home guards are discharging the
duties of Constable, Prahari, Driver which falls under the category
of Group-C post. The copies of these orders dated 30.05.2024.
10.08.2023, 16.04.2024, 04.11.2024, 27.12.2024. 31.12.2024,
05.04.2024 & 25.03.1992 are annexed herewith collectively as
ANNEXURE-6 for perusal of this Hon’ble High Court.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (8 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
4. That apart from Group-C posts it is respectfully submitted that
on the Group-D posts the services of the home guards are utilized by
almost every department with the special approval of Finance from
the personnel Department. For perusal of this Hon’ble Court letters
dated 30.12.2023, 02.02.2024, 13.02.2024 & 29.04.2024 are
collectively annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-7.
5. That in view of the above it is evident that the services of the
home guards are utilized almost by every department against the
vacant posts of Group-D as well as some post of the Group-C like
Prahari, Forest Guard, Constable etcetc but neither they are paid at
par with employees of same post nor they are given any benefits or
relaxation or other privilege as applicable to the regular employees
like annual grade increment, regular pay scale, regularization,
leave encashment and different kind of leave, as such the act of the
respondents not taking care or not treating the home guards equally
with the employees of post of which they are discharging the duties
is amounting to treating equal unequally.
6. The Home guards are being deprived from all those benefits
which are applicable to the regular employees merely on the
account that their services. are considered volunteer services but
initially this might be falling within the category of volunteer
service when these duties were performed by the regular employees
in addition to their regular duties but now-a-days looking into the
major problem of the unemployment educated youth is engaged to
discharge the duties of home guards with no limitation of working
hours and with no limitation of kind of duties as provided under
Rules 17 of Rules of 1962.
7. That the unemployed youth like home guards has no option other
than to serve under the respondents as home guards/volunteer but
the State Government being the model employer failed to consider
the case/issue of the home guard regarding regularizing their
services or extending the benefit is applicable regular employees
but in today scenario it is very difficult for the home guards to
survive with small amount which is paid to them. Thus, the
government is required to act as a model employer and extend the
benefit in any kind like granting them reservation in the selection of
Group-D posts in direct recruitment, providing the certain kind of
weightage /bonus to compete in the selection or to make the
payment minimum of the cadre or post with the pay scale which is
being received by the regular employee.
Though in the additional affidavit, as above, it is stated that
the members of the Home Guards Union are discharging the
duties since more than 20 years and many are discharging the
duties since more than 10 years at par with Group-C employees
on the post of Group-C/ cadre in different departments, but no
specific details have been given once again.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (9 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
11. Having perused the aforesaid additional affidavit filed by the
petitioner, this Court, vide an order dated 07.03.2025, directed
the respondents to furnish their response thereto by providing the
original dates of deployment of some of the Home Guards
mentioned therein. Accordingly, the following order was passed :-
Order dated 07.03.2025
“Arguments have been heard in part in continuation of the
earlier proceedings of this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to
the additional affidavit dated 19.01.2025 filed by the petitioner and
in particular Annex.6 appended therewith, which reflects that vide
various orders passed from time to time, the services of the Home-
Guards, which are being utilized on the Class IV Posts of either
peons and/or other alternative posts, are being extended on year to
year basis. However, it is not clear that as to when were the
originally deployed as Class-IV Employees in the various
departments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to ascertain
their original dates of deployment as Class-IV Employee.
May do so.
Likewise, learned counsel appearing for the respondents to
also seek instructions from the respondents and file an additional
affidavit of the competent authority by giving details of the Home-
Guards who have been mentioned in Annex.6 in the various
departments by giving their specific dates of original deployment,
which subsequently led to passing of the extension orders from time
to time.
Post it on 11.03.2025.”
12. Apropos, an affidavit dated 18.03.2025, affirmed by the
Deputy Commandant, was filed wherein it is deposed that out of
42 persons deployed vide order dated 13.08.2018 as Home
Guards, 12 persons are continuously deployed and that out of 53
Home Guards who were deployed for the period 01.09.2018 to
30.09.2018, 27 volunteers were still deployed. The relevant
extract thereof is reproduced as under :-
Additional Affidavit dated 18.03.2025:-
2. That the Hon’ble Court has issued notices vide order dated
17.01.2025 and directed the counsel for the answering respondents
to place on record the relevant documents as well as to file reply.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (10 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
The answering respondents have submitted their reply and
submitted relevant documents in pursuant to order dated
17.01.2025. Thereafter, the matter was heard on few occasions and
in continuous of hearing, the Hon’ble court has directed the
answering respondents to seek instructions from the Department
and file Additional Affidavit of the Competent Authority by giving
details of the Home Guards who are mentioned in Annexure-6. It
was directed by the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 07.03.2025 to
give specific details of original deployment of the persons
mentioned in Annexure-6. In compliance of order dated 07.03.2025,
the answering respondents respectfully submit that the persons
mentioned in Annexure-6 and persons alike are initially deployed on
30.08.2018 in Office of Commandant Home Guard Training Centre
Nagaur. The true and correct copy of the order dated 30.08.2018 is
submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-AA/1. Out of total 42
persons deployed vide order dated 13 th August, 2018 only 12
persons are continuously deployed. The details of deployed 12
persons areas follows :-
Order 2025 Old Belt No. New Belt No.
48 542
671 564
116 436
419 427
409 472
164
179
3. Similarly the Home Guards are also deployed in Rajasthan
High Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur on requisition made by
Learned Registrar General. The deployment was made vide order
dated 31.08.2018 and 53 Home Guards were deployed for
01.09.2018 to 30.09.2018. Out of these 53 volunteers 27 were still
deployed.
Order 2018 Belt No.
1,2,7,42,208, 229,254,305,310, 411,459,469
547, 615, 669, 717, 721, 779, 797, 819, 859, 863,
886, 1068, 1082, 1227, 1406
The true and correct copy of the order dated 31.08.2018 is
submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-AA/2.
However, other Home Guards deployed on rotational basis
were given work in other offices. The fact pertinent to submit before
the Hon’ble Court is that the Home Guards are usually deployed on
rotational basis and there are only exceptions that the particular
Home Guards deployed against the Class-IV Employees continuous
for long period or at one place so the claim raised by the petitioner
to grant the bonus marks for the deployment of the petitioner and
persons alike the petitioners is prayer made for limited group of
persons which could not be granted in this peculiar facts and
circumstances, where the Home Guards deployed as Class IV
employees are continued on rotational basis and even there is no
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (11 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
legal obligation upon the answering respondents to continuous any
specific Home Guard in any specific office or for a long continuous
period. Similarly, it is also a fact that the Home Guards are enrolled
with the answering respondents as volunteers are not given
continuous duty on a particular post in a particular office so the
continuous working as a Class IV employees in the State and
Central Offices and in Rajasthan High Court do not give any right
to claim bonus marks for continuous service as the volunteers
deployed as Home Guards are generally not continuously for long
period so claim bonus marks is not sustainable. Therefore, the very
basic foundation of the writ petition is bereft of merits and same is
liable to be depreciated consequently, it is respectfully prayed that
the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be dismissed.
4. With due respect, it is respectfully submitted that as per
Judicial Precedent settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The claim
made by the petitioner is no more res integra and it is settle that the
services of the Home Guard is a volunteer services which the
volunteer render as public service as volunteer so volunteers cannot
claim any right moreover, legal right to get any specific benefit out
of volunteer services. The claim made by the petitioner is against
the very basic concept of the Home Guards volunteers therefore, the
prayer petitioner is liable to be depreciated and consequence
thereof the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. With due respect it is worthwhile to submit here that the
petitioner is allegedly representing the Home Guards by allegedly
mentioning to be member of any Association, but the Association as
mentioned by the petitioner is not recognized Association as per the
answering respondent Department. The petitioner also failed to
submit any such authorization. There is availability of alternate
remedy, if any grievance arose to the petitioner against the
answering respondent’s i.e. Home Guards Department. The Home
Guard Department has constituted grievances redressal Committee
for issues related to the Home Guard volunteers and further more
for the welfare of Home Guard volunteers. The Welfare fund
Committee, grievances redressal committee convenes time to time
meetings to resolve the problems related to home guard volunteers.
There are nominated volunteers for each District who represents
home guards at State Level commandant conference so the filling of
writ petition by the petitioner is in over reaching the process of
grievance redressal mechanism provided by the Home Guard
Department. Therefore also the instant writ petition has no merits
and is liable to be dismissed.”
13. Having seen the affidavits, it so transpires that there are two
sets of home guards i.e. those whose duties are rotated and the
others who are though, so to speak, render voluntary service, but
actually they are on non-rotational duty ever since their
deployment and continue to work uninterruptedly. Qua the
grievance of being arbitrarily being rotated on duty, a coordinate
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (12 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
bench of this court is already seized of the matter, as already
noted vide SBCWP No.11085 of 2022. I shall, therefore, confine
myself to the latter i.e. ones who are in continuous deployment,
without any break, for years together on non-rotational duty.
14. In the context of those deployed without any break for a
continuous period of 5 years or a decade or even more, as the
case may be, reference may be had to Supreme court judgment in
State of West Bengal v. Pantha Chatterjee 1 where in a similar
matter concerning a group of part-time Border Wing Home Guards
(BWHGs) who approached the Calcutta High Court claiming that
despite performing duties identical to those of the permanent
BWHGs and Border Security Force (BSF) personnel, they were
subjected to discrimination in terms of service conditions, pay, and
benefits. These part-time Home Guards, originally engaged under
a voluntary scheme, argued that their long years of continuous
deployment effectively removed the voluntary nature of their
service. The High Court, after careful consideration of the facts
and the relevant government orders, found favor with the BWHGs,
concluding that the part-time guards were indeed functioning
under a relationship of master and servant with the State of West
Bengal. It was held that although the scheme initially envisaged
short-term voluntary service with rotation every three months, in
practice, the same individuals had been employed continuously for
more than a decade without any rotation, contrary to the intended
design of the scheme.
1
(2003) 6 SCC 469
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (13 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
14.1. The Calcutta High Court also noted that the nature of duties
performed by the part-time and permanent BWHGs was identical,
that they were subjected to the same risks and working
conditions, and that there was no substantial basis to differentiate
between them. As a result, it held that the principle of “equal pay
for equal work,” a constitutional mandate recognized under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, was fully
applicable. Accordingly, the High Court directed that the part-time
BWHGs be granted the same pay scales, benefits, and service
conditions as those extended to their permanent counterparts.
This included arrears of salary, fixation of pay, eligibility for
provident fund, gratuity, retirement benefits, allowances, and
leave.
14.2. When the State of West Bengal challenged this decision
before the Supreme Court, it was reiterated that the BWHGs were
part of a voluntary organization and were engaged under the West
Bengal Home Guards Act. Thus, their deployment did not create
regular service entitlements. However, the Supreme Court
rejected this argument, holding that once the voluntary character
of the engagement had been lost due to years of continuous
service without break, the petitioners were entitled to full
employment benefits. The Supreme Court held that the
circumstances under which the Home Guards worked made it
impossible for them to resume any prior vocation, and to treat
them as mere volunteers would be both arbitrary and unjust.
Moreover, the Court stressed that despite the original scheme
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (14 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
framed by the Central Government, it had failed to monitor its
implementation effectively, and thus could not escape its ultimate
responsibility for the financial burden associated with regularizing
the service of the petitioners.
14.3. The Supreme Court agreed with Calcutta High Court that
the deployment of BWHGs was no longer casual or voluntary in
nature but had become a de facto permanent employment
situation, and as such, they could not be treated differently from
full-time BWHGs. The Court reiterated the principle that equal
work under similar conditions mandates equal pay and service
benefits.
14.4. While reaffirming its opinion, the Supreme Court in turn also
referred to several earlier rulings where similar principles had
been laid down, including the recognition of “equal pay for equal
work” as a constitutional right and the rejection of attempts to
treat long-serving employees as casual workers merely based on
initial contractual terms. Decisions like Jaipal v. State of Haryana2,
Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of Uttar Pradesh3, and Daily Rated
Casual Labour v. Union of India4 . It was thus held that the
substance of the work performed, rather than the label attached
to the employment of the home guards determined their rights.
15. Likewise, in another subsequent Supreme Court judgment
i.e. Union of India v. Parul Debnath5 (once again arising out of
Calcutta High Court) where the case involved Home Guards in the
2
(1988) 3 SCC 354
3
(1986) 1 SCC 637
4
(1988) 1 SCC 122
5
(2009) 14 SCC 173
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (15 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
Andaman & Nicobar Islands who sought regularization of their
services and equal pay for equal work, having served for 12 to 23
years under the A&N Islands. The Home guards filed applications
before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta Bench,
claiming regularization and pay parity with regular employees.
15.1. The CAT directed the Union of India to frame a scheme for
regularization within six months, considering local conditions. The
Union challenged this before the Calcutta High Court, which
upheld the CAT’s order, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in
State of West Bengal v. Pantha Chatterjee, supra. Union of India
then a scheme and reserved only 20% of vacancies for Home
Guards, to be absorbed in phases. Aggrieved, the home guards
challenged the said scheme. The Single Judge of the High Court
upheld the scheme but the Division Bench quashed it, finding it
non-compliant with the ratio enunciated in Pantha Chatterjee, ibid,
and gave slew of directions in tune therewith.
15.2. The Union then appealed to the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the Division Bench’s
decision. It ruled that all eligible Home Guards, not just 20%,
should be absorbed uniformly at once, not in phases. Their
regularization or absorption did not constitute new appointments.
Thus it was not to be treated as any reservation.
16. Reverting to the case in hand, in the course of hearing on
25.03.2025, the petitioner’s learned counsel brought to the notice
of the Court a Union of India circular dated 04.07.2024, which,
being relevant, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (16 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
“04.07.2024
To,
The Chief Secretary/Administrator
All States/UTsSub.: Preference to Civil Defence and Home Guards Volunteers in
recruitment to Government Services regarding.
Sir,
DoPT Office Memorandum No.14034/5/82-Estt(D) dated
5.11.1983 had issued instructions regarding weightage / preference to
Home Guards and Civil defence Volunteers in recruitment to
Government Services.
2. This Ministry vide Letter No.VI-31011/1/81-DGCD(HG) dated
17 January, 1984 and 06 February, 2023 (Copy enclosed) had also
forwarded the above referred letter to all State Government with the
request to consider issuing similar instructions in the matter.
3. In view of above mentioned facts, all States/UTs are requested
to consider giving weightage/preference to Home Guards and Civil
Defence Volunteers in recruitment to Government services and amend
the Recruitment Rules of Group ‘C’ & ‘D’ Posts accordingly.
Encl. : As above.
Yours faithfully,
sd/-
(Vivek Srivastava, IPS)
DG-FS,CD&HG”
Vide an order dated 25.03.2025 passed by this court, which
reads as under, respondents were directed to take a call on it :-
“Order
25.03.2025My attention has been drawn to a Circular dated 04.07.2024
by learned counsel for the petitioner, which has been issued by U.O.I.
addressed to all the States & UTs, requesting all States/UTs to
consider giving weightage / preference to Home Guards and Civil
Defence Volunteers in recruitment to Government services and amend
the Recruitment Rules of Group ‘C’ & ‘D’ Posts accordingly, copy
thereof is taken no record as Annexure-A.
On a Court query posed to learned counsel for the
respondents, he seeks time to get instructions qua the administrative
decision taken, if any, to consider the Circular ibid.
In case, no decision has been taken, it is expected of the
respondents to give due consideration to the said Circular, qua which
as well, learned counsel for the respondents shall seek instructions.
Matter has since been heard at length on the preceding
hearings from time to time, therefore, issue Rule nisi. Petition is
admitted and given the urgency in light of the timeline prescribed in
the notification dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure-4), be listed for final
hearing on 27.03.2025.
Pleadings are already complete.
To be shown as part heard in the supplementary cause list.”
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (17 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
17. Circular dated 04.07.2024 is addressed by the Ministry of
Home Affairs, Union of India to the Chief
Secretaries/Administrators of all States/Union Territories
requesting them to consider giving weightage/preference to Home
Guards and Civil Defence Volunteers in recruitment to Government
services and amend the Recruitment Rules of Group-C and D
posts, respectively. Order dated 25.03.2025 passed by this bench
shows that on Court’s query learned counsel for the respondents
had sought time to get instruction qua the administrative decision
taken, if any, to consider the circular bid and the Court had also
observed that in case no decision had been taken, it was expected
of the respondents to give due consideration to the said circular,
qua which as well, learned counsel for the respondents shall seek
instructions.
18. Subsequently, a letter dated 27.03.2025 from the Directorate
of Home Guards, Rajasthan was placed on record, showing that
contemplated action by State Government on Government of India
circular letter dated 04.07.2024 is underway. The translated
version of the letter dated 27.03.2025 in English is as follows:
Directorate, Home Guards Rajasthan, Jaipur
Phone: 0141-2612591, Fax: 0141-2612592.
E-mail [email protected]
Website: http://rajasthanhomeguards.gov.in/S.No.-HMHq/legal/7(262)2024/ Date -27.03.2025
Shri Ravi Vyas,
Officer in Charge (Commandant)
Home Guard Training Center,
Nagaur.
Subject: Regarding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21500/2024 Shri
Kuldeep Parasar Versus State of Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (18 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
Reference:- Your letter dated 26.03.2025
Sir,
Under the subject cited above and by the referenced letter, the
Government Advocate Shri Sanwar Lal appointed in the mentioned
case pending in the Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur has written to
inform what action has been taken at the level of the State
Government in reference to the letter dated 04.07.2024 of the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
It is noteworthy that action regarding the aforementioned letter of
the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, is under
consideration/in process at the State Government level. Therefore, as
directed, it is requested to kindly inform Shri Sanwar Lal,
Government Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, in this
regard.
Please accord top priority to this letter.
Yours sincerely,
(Dharam Singh Bankawat)
Deputy Commandant”
19. It is thus, in the above backdrop, that the Home guards in
the State of Rajasthan, working on non rotational basis for years
altogether without any break every three months, are challenging
the very foundation of their designation as “volunteers.” They
pose a pertinent question: are they truly volunteers, or have they
become mere conscripts, masked under a label that no longer
reflects the reality of their service? They seek fair pay and other
benefits, improved working conditions, and opportunities for
regularization/absorption into regular government posts, given
their indispensable continuous length of service.
19.1. The essence of volunteerism lies in the voluntary offering of
time and effort without any long-term obligation. Yet, this
definition is being defied qua the non-rotational Home Guards in
every conceivable way. Many home guards have served for
decades without respite. This extraordinary longevity and
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (19 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
continuity of service transform their role from one of voluntary
participation into a de facto employment relationship with the
State. Under the Rajasthan Home Guards Act of 1963 and the
Rajasthan Home Guards Rules of 1962, they are entrusted with a
wide array of duties–maintaining law and order, managing civil
emergencies, providing rescue services, operating essential
infrastructure/offices on Group-C and D posts, assisting in office
work, social welfare schemes, and fulfilling any additional tasks
assigned by the Director General or the government. These
responsibilities are not peripheral; they form the backbone of
State’s public welfare and emergency response system. If the
State relies so heavily on their labor, why does it fail to provide
them with the security and dignity afforded to regular employees?
Their service is not a choice exercised freely in short bursts; it is a
sustained commitment that the State has come to depend upon,
yet refuses to adequately compensate. The assertion that home
guards are no longer volunteers but conscripts, compelled to serve
under exploitative conditions, thus rings true.
19.2. The working conditions endured by Rajasthan’s home guards
further illuminates the aforesaid position. While regular
government employees enjoy a standard workday from 10 AM to 5
PM, with two days off per week, home guards are subjected to 10-
12 hour shifts with no holidays or vacations. Such disparities
highlight a troubling reality: the State is exploiting the home
guards as a cost-effective labor force, reaping the benefits of their
dedication without offering commensurate protections or
remuneration or security of job or post retiral benefits. For
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (20 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
individuals who dedicate their lives to serving the public–often at
great personal sacrifice–this treatment is not only unfair but also
unsustainable.
20. The prayer in the petition doesn’t, therefore, seem
extravagant; rather it is a reasonable measure to honor years of
service. Age relaxation is particularly critical, as many home
guards may now have exceeded the standard age limits for
government jobs due to their prolonged tenure. Granting them
this concession would level the playing field, allowing them to
compete based on their experience rather than being penalized for
their dedication. Similarly, bonus points or weightage would
reward their expertise, giving them a fair shot at securing regular
employment. Reserving posts for home guards or in the
alternative absorbing them on regular basis would further offer a
pathway to stability and social security.
20.1. Beyond the aforesaid immediate remedy in the current
selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated
03.08.2013, the petitioners also urge the State to frame rules,
policies, or guidelines for the betterment of home guards viz.
regularization/absorption i.e. converting their positions into
permanent government jobs with proper salaries, health
insurance, pensions, and other benefits. Other States in India
have already set examples by providing reservations, age
relaxations, or bonus marks for home guards in competitive
exams.
21. At this stage, it would be apposite to notice the relief claimed
in SBCWP No. 11085/2022 : Hari Shankar Acharya & Ors. Vs.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (21 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
State of Rajasthan & Ors. and a detailed order dated 27.01.2025
passed in that case by the learned Co-ordinate Bench.
22. The prayer in the SBCWP No. 11085/2022 is as under:
“A. By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature
thereof the respondents may be directed to stop the rotation
system and provide full year employment to the petitioners.
B. By an appropriate writ, order and direction the
respondents may kindly be restrained from unnecessarily
advertising and appointing more members/Home Guards
and to first take full year employment from existing members.
C. By an appropriate writ, order and direction the
respondents may kindly be directed to adhere with the
directions of the State Human Rights Commission in
constituting a high level Committee to take note of the
recommendations/directions of Human Rights Commission
and to take appropriate steps for regulating the working of
Home guards particularly in respect of providing full year
employment.
D. Any other appropriate writ, order and direction which this
Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the fact and
circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of
the petitioners.
E. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed
with costs.”
23. Entertaining the above petition, a co-ordinate bench of this
Court presided over by my learned brother, Farjand Ali, J., vide his
order dated 27.01.2025, while making certain observations,
directed as under :
“6. The primary concern revolves around the livelihood of home
guards. In a country grappling with rising inflation, these
individuals are paid a bare minimum, insufficient to ensure their
survival. Upon reviewing the relevant legislation, it is evident that
the post of home guards was created to ensure the protection, safety,
and security of the nation. Furthermore, to encourage individuals to
volunteer in maintaining law and order at the grassroots level, their
remuneration must be sufficient to sustain a basic standard of living.
7. This Court is cognizant of the infringement of fundamental rights,
particularly Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which
guarantees the right to life–a life with dignity. The Court has
expressed concern in this regard. It believes that if the Home
Department undertakes necessary efforts, home guards could be(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (22 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]effectively deployed alongside police constables. In the opinion of
this Court, deploying two home guards in place of one permanent
police constable would result in significant savings for the State.
This implies that the cost of two home guards would be less than
that of one permanent constable and also the police constables can
be deployed to locations where their services are more urgently
required.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
11. In light of the aforementioned discussion, the Chief Secretary of
the State of Rajasthan is hereby directed to constitute an expert
committee to examine the matter comprehensively and address all
aspects, issues, and suggestions articulated by this Court in the
subsequent paragraphs. The committee shall also take into
consideration the deployment of all registered home guards or an
increase in their numbers, as deemed necessary and shall make a
report of the same. Needful shall be done within a period of 30 days
after receiving a copy of this order.
12. The committee is directed to deliberate upon, inter alia, the
following issues and suggestions:-
(a) Planning and Feasibility: The Committee shall explore
and evaluate the feasibility of providing 100% employment or
deployment to the increased number of home guards.
(b) Study of the Uttar Pradesh Model: The Committee shall
study the deployment model adopted by the State of Uttar
Pradesh for home guards and assess its implementation in
Rajasthan. For this purpose, the Committee may seek
assistance from senior officials of the Home and Home Guard
Departments of Uttar Pradesh.
(c) Digital Deployment System: Since deployment in Uttar
Pradesh is managed through online computer programs, the
Committee shall coordinate with the National Informatics
Centre (NIC) to develop and implement a similar program for
the State of Rajasthan.
(d) Permanent Financial Approval: The Committee shall
ensure that permanent financial approvals are granted for the
deployment and employment of home guards.
(e) Police Station Allocation: A fixed number of home guards
should be allocated to each police station to assist with night
patrolling, maintaining law and order, and tasks such as
serving Court summons. Consequently, additional home
guards must be sanctioned for each police station. The
Committee shall recommend a fixed ratio of police personnel
to home guards for every police station.
(f) Traffic Management: A designated number of home guards
should be deployed alongside police personnel to assist with
traffic management.
(g) Guard Duties at Public Places: Home guards should be
utilized for guard duties at hospitals, banks, railway stations,
bus stands, malls, and similar public places, alongside police
officers. This would allow more trained police personnel to be
available at police stations, thereby alleviating the workload
arising from staff shortages.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (23 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
(h) District-Level Sanctioning: Posts for home guards should
be sanctioned in every district to ensure uniform deployment
and availability.
(i) System for Regular Deployment: Without prejudice to the
above suggestions, the Committee shall devise a system
ensuring that all registered home guards willing to serve are
given deployment for a fixed number of days every month.
This would facilitate year-round employment for home
guards.
(j) Financial Cooperation: The Finance Department shall
extend its cooperation and grant necessary sanctions in
alignment with the intent expressed by this Court in the
instant order.
13. Nothing would preclude the respondent to get register fresh
volunteer/aspirants. The restrain imposed by this Court on previous
occasion vide order dated 16.10.2024 is withdrawn for the present.
14. The Chief Secretary or the Expert Committee is further directed
to appoint a Coordinator to assist this Court, should the need arise.
The aforementioned Committee, through its appointed Coordinator,
shall submit a comprehensive report to this Court on or before
1.04.2025. The report shall be furnished through Shri B.L. Bhati,
Additional Advocate General (AAG), and Shri Deepak Chandak,
Assistant Additional Advocate General (AAAG), who usually
appears on behalf of the Home Department of the State of
Rajasthan.”
24. Pursuant to this Court’s aforesaid order, an Expert
Committee has been constituted vide an office order dated
12.02.2025 issued by the Home Department of Rajasthan
Government as under :
(i) Mahanideshak Evam Mahasamadeshta, Grah Raksha
(Director General and Commandant-General, Home
Guards) Chairman.
(ii) Mahanirikshak, Grah Raksha (Inspector General,
Home Guards), Member
(iii) Shasan Up-Sachiv Grah (Aa. Pr.) [Deputy Secretary to
Government, Home Guards], Member
(iv) Vitteeya Salahakar, Grah Raksha (Financial Adviser,
Home Guards ) Member
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (24 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
(v) Senior Staff Officer-II, Grah Raksha (Home Guards),
Member Secretary
25. It is understood that the report of Expert Committee, which
was required to be submitted on or before 01.04.202, has not yet
been submitted in the Court.
26. Taking into consideration the relief claimed in SBCWP NO.
11085/2022 vis-à-vis that claimed in the instant petition, it is
obvious that the claim in the present petition qua rotational Home
Guards is either covered by and included in or otherwise is more
or less the same or substantially the same as the relief claimed in
SBCWP NO. 11085/2022 except the peculiar claim in present
petition specifically to provide age relaxation/bonus/other kind of
weightage or by reserving certain number of posts for the Home
Guards while filling up 52,453 posts of class IV (Group D)
employees notified vide Annexure-4. In the premise, for reasons
of judicial discipline and propriety, therefore, it would not be
appropriate for this Bench simultaneously to go into merits of the
claim in present petition and express any opinion about the same.
27. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate, if the
aforesaid Expert Committee is asked to take into consideration the
claim in the instant petition qua the non-rotational Home Guards
(including the specific claim relating to filling up 52,453 posts of
Class-IV/Group-D employees notified vide Annexure-4) by
preparing and submitting another report to the State Government.
The proposed report be submitted at-least one month prior to date
of written examination to be conducted as part of the selection
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (25 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
process (proposed date of written examinations are 18.09.2025 to
21.09.2025 as per advertisement).
28. I may like to add here that as regards the specific claim
herein to provide age relaxation/bonus/other kind of weightage or
by reserving certain number of posts for the Home Guards while
filling up 52,453 posts of Class-IV/Group-D notified vide
Annexure-4, it appears the same cannot even otherwise be
adjudicated by this Court without necessarily verifying the
individual case of each Home Guard so as to provide age
relaxation/bonus/other kind of weightage or by reserving certain
number of posts for the Home Guards in the recruitment to the
posts under the Government. The same is accordingly best left
open to the expertise of the committee, ibid.
Conclusion:
29. To conclude, the non-rotational Home Guards working on
Group-C and D posts, have been trapped and masked under the
false label of “volunteers.” In reality, they are workers exploited
for years without proper recognition or rights. Some have served
continuously for up to 20 years, a span that shatters any illusion
of voluntary service, deemingly making them employees, not
disposable volunteers.
30. Even the State’s dependence on these home guards is total.
They maintain law and order, work in offices on Group-C and D
posts, manage disasters, assist with welfare schemes, and fulfill
countless critical duties — all while enduring 12-hour shifts
without a single guaranteed holiday, a stark harsh reality that
even regular government staff are spared. Their so-called
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (26 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
honorarium is a pittance in exchange for a lifetime of service.
Calling them “volunteers” merely hides their systemic exploitation,
allowing the State to profit from their labor without providing the
rights, protections, or security they deserve.
31. It is rather disheartening that Home Guards are treated
worse than casual laborers. Other states have recognized and
uplifted their home guards; Rajasthan’s continued neglect is
indefensible. Immediate reforms are a matter of policy to be
framed by the State and are a legal imperative. Until State ends
this charade, these home guards will remain not volunteers but
mere victims!
32. Advertisement (Annexure-4) shows that 19.04.2025 is the
last date for submission of applications for recruitment to 52,453
posts of Class-IV/Group-D, thereby notified. Very short time is
now left for that. Given the urgency involved, it is left to the
wisdom and administrative discretion of the respondents to
examine the feasibility of taking such interim measures as they
consider fair and reasonable, in exercise of their discretion and
address the claim of Home Guards qua the filling up 52,453 posts
of Class-IV/Group-D.
33. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is
disposed as under:
a) It is directed that the respondents shall forthwith take
appropriate steps requiring them to place the matter before
the Expert Committee (constituted pursuant to the order
dated 27.01.2025 passed by the co-ordinate bench) which
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (27 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]shall frame an appropriate scheme to be approved by the
competent authority of the State for framing a policy.
b) It is further directed that the committee shall also take into
consideration the claim in the instant petition while preparing
and submitting it’s scheme/report qua age relaxation/bonus/
other kind of weightage or by reserving certain number of
posts for the Home Guards while filling-up 52,453 posts of
Class-IV (Group-D) employees notified vide Annexure-4.
34. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
35. Before parting, it is deemed appropriate that in light of
Supreme Court judgments (cited ibid) and discussion contained
here in above, certain guidelines are culled out/framed for the
benefit of the Expert Committee, which shall be borne in mind
while taking a whole some decision on the claim of the home
guards, particularly the ones working continuously on non-
rotational basis uninterruptedly, without any break, for long years.
Same are as below :-
GUIDELINES :
1. Continuous Deployment Changes Nature of
Employment:
If the Home Guards initially engaged on a voluntary are
deployed continuously over an extended period (years), their
status ought to be regularized. Authorities cannot continue
to treat them as volunteers once the nature of engagement
becomes permanent through practice. Home Guards who
have served continuously for extended periods (10 to 20
years in this case) performing duties of a regular nature
must either be absorbed into the regular establishment or be
accorded the benefit of bonus marks with age relaxation(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (28 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]depending upon length of service rendered by them. The
regularization in such cases does not constitute new
appointments thus negating the need for fresh selection or
reservation policy.
2. Equal Pay for Equal Work Must Be Ensured:
Home Guards performing the same duties as their regular
counter-parts in Group-C and D service and performing duty
under similar conditions must be provided equal pay and
benefits, irrespective of their initial designation as part-time,
temporary, or voluntary workers.
3. Duty of Government to Monitor Implementation of
Scheme as envisaged :
When Home Guard scheme is/was framed as voluntary, it is/
was the responsibility of the concerned government to
ensure its proper implementation in the manner envisaged.
Failure to monitor or making it non voluntary cannot be used
later as defense to deny the rights of home guards.
4. Technical Defenses Cannot Defeat Substantive Rights:
Governments must not use procedural or technical defenses
(like the initial voluntary nature of employment) to deny
legitimate benefits to Home Guards whose factual conditions
of work establish regular employment relationships.
5. Recognition of Fundamental Rights in Service Matters:
Constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 16 (Equality
and Equal Opportunity) apply fully to the Home Guards also.
Any discrimination between similarly situated employees is
thus unconstitutional, even in non-regular or voluntary
scheme-based appointments.
6. Accountability of Deployment Authorities:
Operational authorities exercising control over deployed
Home guards must also bear responsibility for the
consequences of continuous deployment, including
recognizing resulting employment rights. Long-term,
continuous service under the control of state is effectively to
be treated as permanent employment.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17885] (29 of 29) [CW-21500/2024]
36. Aforesaid guidelines would go a long way to ensure fairness,
equality, and in tune with what the Supreme Court has mandated
in State of West Bengal v. Pantha Chatterjee followed by Union of
India v. Parul Debnath so as to carry out one time regularization
of long-serving Home Guards on parity with long serving
contractual employees who are accorded the similar benefit of
absorption/ regularization.
37. Disposed of with above observations.
(ARUN MONGA),J
180-Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 09:55:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link