Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 968 (RAJ)

Loon Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2018-04-10

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Pradeep Nandrajog, J. The factual backdrop leading to filing of the present petition is that the Home Guards organization was raised in India in the erstwhile State of Bombay in the year 1946 for the purpose of assisting the police in controlling civil disturbances and communal riots. With the passage of time the service of the Home Guards was utilized throughout India for purposes as diverse as maintenance of law and order and providing help in natural calamities like floods, fires, famines etc. 2. On November 29 and 30,1966 a meeting was held in the office of Director General, Civil Defence Ministry of Affairs to discuss the organization of the Border Wing of the Home Guards in Punjab and Rajasthan. The salient features of minutes of said meeting are being noted herein under: - "1. The DGCD welcomed the Commandants General Home Guards of the Punjab and Rajasthan and stated that the August-September 65 operations had brought out following in regard to Home Guards: - (a) Rural Home Guards in close proximity to the Border had understandably become involved in the protection of their villages, families and properties and where warranted, in their evacuation, and had, as such, not responded to the call up notice. The response from rural Home Guards living somewhat back had on the other hand been very encouraging. (b) There was a need for a better organised, disciplined and trained Home Guards set up in the border areas which could be mobilised quickly for use within its own border district or even elsewhere when warranted. For this purpose it should be somewhat removed from the immediate vicinity of the border. (c) There had been a demand from the BSF organization for assistance, which though most necessary, could not be adequately provided from the existing Home Guards organization. 2. For this purpose it should be somewhat removed from the immediate vicinity of the border. (c) There had been a demand from the BSF organization for assistance, which though most necessary, could not be adequately provided from the existing Home Guards organization. 2. As a result of considerable discussion it was agreed that bearing in mind the need for utmost economy there was necessity to form a Border Wing of the Home Guards in the Punjab and Rajasthan with the following additional roles over and above those already laid down for the urban and rural Home Guards: - (a) In normal times and during periods of tension on the border to assist in providing local security to border villages and thereby boost the morale of the inhabitants to stick on to their land and to pose as a deterrent against pilferage from across the border. (b) To protect the lines of communication in times of emergency and to assist the local administration in tackling problems of internal security in the borders areas; and (c) When required, to provide sub units as auxiliaries to the BSF in defence of the border including patrolling along the border and in fighting infiltrators. 3. It was agreed that there was a need for one Battalion of the Border Wing of the Home Guard for each of the three border districts in the Punjab and the four border districts of Rajasthan. In view of the problem of involvement of people living in close proximity to the border in the protection of their villages and possessions and therefore their likely non availability of Home Guards call up, it was further agreed that: - (b) Along the Rajasthan border the population being more spare and in some cases not entirely reliable, this belt should be adjusted as under: - (i) Ganganagar District. 5 to 25 miles. (ii) Bikaner District. 20 to 45 miles. (iii) Jaisalmer District. 25 to 50 (iv) Barmer District. 25 to 50 miles. 4. After detailed discussions the following were agreed to in regard to the organisation of these battalions: - (a) The basic section would consist of 1 Corporal, 1 Lance Corporal and 10 Home Guards. These would be recruited as far as possible from one village. In respect of Rajasthan each section should also have 3 camels. All sections including camels would function on a part time basis. These would be recruited as far as possible from one village. In respect of Rajasthan each section should also have 3 camels. All sections including camels would function on a part time basis. This implies that the sections would be mobilised only for training, during emergencies to meet special requirements. (b) The platoon should be capable of working on a detached basis for limited periods, but only with administrative support from the Coy. HQ. for this purpose Pl. HQ would consist of Pl Commander, who would be full time to ensure effective control and training of his command. 1 Pl Sgt. and 1 Pl runner, the latter two being on a part time basis (e) All personnel of the Bn. are to be in uniform and trained as Home Guardsmen, except the non-combatants. The staff at Bn. HQ. and Coy HQ plus the Pl. Commander are to be fulltime and paid as such. The reminder are to be on a part time basis, receiving honoraria at the following rates per month: - Guardsmen Rs.5.00 Lance Corporal 7.00 Corporal 10.00 Pl. Havildar 15.00 5. Training: (a) Border Wing Bns. need to be given better training than the prescribed plus the additional under consideration for the rural Home Guards. The following minimum training is thus recommended for the present, it being further reviewed as a result of experience gained: - (i) Basic 45 working days (No change) (ii) Advanced Per year 45 working days for 1/3rd of strength (iii) Annual Refreshment Guards to 22 working days authorized under consideration for the Rural Home Both Commandants General were of the opinion that the proposed organisation of the Border Wing Bns. Would provide a well organised, trained and to mobilise for in the border districts capable of fulfilling the assigned roles. They however, felt that with the increase in the scope of such Home Guards Bns and their greater cost, the Centre should accept 75% of the liability of the initial cost and the annual recurring expenditure. It was agreed that this would be further examined in the Ministry. These minutes have been approved by the Chairman." "3. Vide letter September 04, 1967 the Ministry of Home Affairs forwarded the afore-noted Minutes of Meeting to the Home Ministry of Govts. of Punjab and Rajasthan. 4. It was agreed that this would be further examined in the Ministry. These minutes have been approved by the Chairman." "3. Vide letter September 04, 1967 the Ministry of Home Affairs forwarded the afore-noted Minutes of Meeting to the Home Ministry of Govts. of Punjab and Rajasthan. 4. Vide letter dated March 26, 1968 Governor, State of Rajasthan conveyed his sanction for raising four Battalions of Home Guards in the Border Districts of Rajasthan viz. Barmer, Bikaner, Jaisalmer and Ganganagar, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:- "I am directed to convey sanction of the Governor for raising 4 Battalions in the Border Districts of Rajasthan viz. Barmer, Bikaner, Jaisalmer and Ganganagar and erection of Posts for each Battalions as per Appendix 'A' attached to this Letter in the Rajasthan pay scales noted against each. 2. The strength of a Battalion will consist of whole time paid staff as well as part-time staff as follows: - (a) The basic section would consist of 1 Corporal, 1 Lance Corporal and 10 Home Guards. Each section should also have 3 camels. All section including camels would function on a part-time basis. (b) The platoon should be capable of working on a detached basis for limited periods, but only with administrative support from the Coy. Headquarter." 5. In the year 1985 Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India issued a Compendium of Instructions on Home Guards. Chapter X of said Compendium dealt with Border Wing Home Guards, the relevant portion whereof reads as under: - "CHAPTER X BORDER WING HOME GUARDS 10.1 ROLE Border Wing Home Guards have been authorised to be raised in the States of Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and West Bengal to perform the following roles in addition to their normal roles:- (a) In normal times and during periods of tension on the border, to assist in providing local security to border villages and thereby boost the morale of inhabitants to stick to their lands and to pose as a deterrent against pilferage from across the border. (b) To assist the local administration in protecting the lines of communications including Vas and VPs in times of emergency and in tackling problems of internal security in the border areas. (c) When required, commensurate with their capabilities, to provide assistance to the security forces including protection to their Vas/VPs patrolling along the border and in checking and preventing infiltration. (b) To assist the local administration in protecting the lines of communications including Vas and VPs in times of emergency and in tackling problems of internal security in the border areas. (c) When required, commensurate with their capabilities, to provide assistance to the security forces including protection to their Vas/VPs patrolling along the border and in checking and preventing infiltration. 10.2 ORGANISATION Each organisation of Border Wing Home Guard consists of 4 to 8 companies together with nucleus of full-time paid staff at various levels. There are 4 platoons in a company in Punjab battalion as against 3 in the remaining 6 States. There are 4 Sections in a platoon in Punjab as against 3 in platoon in other States. The strength of Border Wring Home Guards sanctioned for each State and composition of each battalion and strength of full-time personnel per battalion is appended below: - (a) SANCTIONED STRENGTH State No. of Bns. No. of Coys. No. of Platoons No. of Sections Strength of Combatant per Battalion Rajasthan 4 24 72 216 751 (b) STRENGTH OF FULL TIME STAFF PER BATTALION State Platoon Combatant Coy Bn. Non- Combatant/Sweeper/Chowkidar RAjasthan 1 11 85 13 10.6 RECRUITMENT Members of Border Wing Home Guards may be enrolled both from both Rural and Urban Home Guards belonging to specific zones where Border Wing Home Guards have been raised. The strength of each sanctioned battalion will be found from within the overall existing allocated targets of Home Guards of each state. 10.7 CALL-UP OF BORDER WING HOME GUARDS BY THE ARMY AND ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENT THEREOF Call-up of Border Wing Home Guards by the Army and their administrative arrangement while employed by the Army will be governed as per instructions contained in MHA letter No.1-36012/1/80-DGCD (HG) dated 19th March 1983. 10.8 CALL-UP OF BORDER WING HOME GUARDS BY THE BORDER SECURITY FORCE The procedure for call-up of Border Wing Home Guards by the Border Security Force and sharing of expenditure for such-call up will be governed as per instructions contained in MHA letter No.111-14011/6/79-DGCD (HG) dated 5th August 1980." 6. Before we proceed further, it is apposite to note that procedure for engagement of Border Wing Home Guards is prescribed under Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 and Rajasthan Home Guards Rules, 1962, the salient features of which Act are as under" The Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 2. Before we proceed further, it is apposite to note that procedure for engagement of Border Wing Home Guards is prescribed under Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 and Rajasthan Home Guards Rules, 1962, the salient features of which Act are as under" The Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 2. Constitution of Home Guards and appointment of Commandant General, Deputy Commandant General and Commandant (1) The State Government shall, by notification for such areas of the State as it may consider expedient, a volunteer body called the Home Guards the members of which shall discharge such functions and duties in relation to the protection of persons, the security of property and public safety as may be assigned to them in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under. (2) The State Government shall appoint a Commandant of each of the Home Guards constituted under sub-section (1). (3) The State Government shall also appoint a Commandant General of Home Guards in whom shall vest the general supervision and control of Home Guards throughout the State of Rajasthan. (4) The State Government may also appoint a Deputy Commandant General of Home Guards, who shall, subject to the supervision and control of the Commandant General, exercise the powers conferred on the Commandant General in such circumstances as the Commandant General may specify. 3. Appointment of Members - (1) Subject to the approval of the Commandant General, the Commandant may appoint as members of the Home Guards such number of persons, who are fit and willing to serve, as may from time to time be determined by the State Government, and may appoint any such member to any office of command in the Home Guards. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) the Commandant General may, subject to the approval of State Government, appoint any such member to any post under his immediate control. Rajasthan Home Guards Rules, 1962 "3. Appointment of member of Home Guards - No person shall be appointed as a member of the Home Guards unless(a) he has attained the age of 18 years and has not completed the age of 45 years; (b) he has passed at least the fourth standard examination in any language; (c) he has been medically examined in accordance with the directions of the Commandant General and is in the opinion of the Commandant physically fit. Provided that the Commandant General may relax the conditions regarding the age or educational qualification, prescribed in clause (a) and (b) above in suitable cases. Provided further that the State Government may direct that in respect of any area the educational qualification for appointment as a member of the Home Guards shall be such as it deems fit. 4. Application for appointment - A person desiring to be appointed as member of the Home Guards shall make an application in form "A". 8. Term of Office - The term of office of a member of the Home Guards shall be five years. Provided that (i) if any such member is found to be medically unfit to continue as a member of Home Guards his appointment may be terminated before the expiry of the term of office; (ii) a person appointed shall be eligible for reappointment; (iii) the services of a member of the Home Guards may be terminated at any time by the Commandant or the Commandant General, as the case may be, after giving one months' notice. 9. Limit of age for a member of the Home Guards - A member of the Home Guards may continue to be such member until he attains the age of 55 years. Provided that the Commandant General or Commandant may relax the age in reasonable cases." 7. In the light of above backdrop, we now proceed to deal with the controversy in the present case. 8. The appellants are the members of Border Wing Home Guards of State of Rajasthan. Admittedly, the appellants were initially appointed for a term of five years which has been extended from time to time. 9. In the year 2006, appellants filed four writ petitions before a Single Judge of this Court inter-alia praying for following relief’s: - "(i) Respondents be directed to grant parity to appellants in all respects in terms and conditions of their employment with that of permanent whole time Border Wing of Home Guards in Rajasthan. (ii) Respondents be directed to grant all benefits of the Government servants including fixation of pay, benefits of provident fund, gratuity and all retirement benefits as well as all sorts of government allowances, leave incentives and usual increments etc, arrears of pay and all other benefits from the respective date of joining. (ii) Respondents be directed to grant all benefits of the Government servants including fixation of pay, benefits of provident fund, gratuity and all retirement benefits as well as all sorts of government allowances, leave incentives and usual increments etc, arrears of pay and all other benefits from the respective date of joining. (iii) Respondents be directed to absorb all the appellants as permanent Border Wing Home Guards with all consequential benefits." 10. In support of relief’s claimed in the writ petition, following submissions were advanced by the appellants before the Single Judge: - (i) Border Wing Home Guards is essentially an auxiliary force to the Army and Border Security Force and members thereof have participated in many operations such as 1971 Indo-Pak War, Operation Vijay, Operation Parakram etc. (ii) Appellants have been rendering services at the Indo-Pak Border and are on call throughout the year and have to be on duty for days and months as and when called. (iii) Even though appellants have been rendering similar services as rendered by para military forces since last 40 years there has been a serious discrimination between the employees of para military forces and Border Wing Home Guards as well as permanent members of Border Wing Home Guards which is clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. (iv) Appellants have rendered services and remained on call uninterruptedly for a very long duration at par with their counterparts in BSF, Army and other organizations of Govt. of Rajasthan. (In the present appeals, a chart in respect of Prem Singh, appellant No.1 in SAW No.769/2009 has been pressed into service by the appellants to highlight that on an average Prem Singh has worked 208 days a year in his service career spanning 32 years implying thereby members of Border Wing Home Guards at par with a regular cadre employee in State of Rajasthan. (v) Appellants being members of Border Wing Home Guards are holders of civil posts within the meaning of Article 311 of Constitution of India and therefore they are entitled to receive all facilities and benefits of service which are available to other holders of the civil posts. (vi) The services of similarly situated members of Border Wing of Home Guards of various states viz. Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, West Bengal and Gujarat. (vi) The services of similarly situated members of Border Wing of Home Guards of various states viz. Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, West Bengal and Gujarat. (vii) Denial of relief of regularization of service and consequential benefits to appellants is not only in violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of India but also ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision State of West Bengal & Ors vs. Pantha Chatterjee & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 469 . 11. Vide judgment dated December 08, 2008 the Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions essentially on the following grounds: - (i) Appellants were not appointed under any service rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India. (ii) The decision of Supreme Court in Pantha Chatterjee's case relied upon by appellants is of no avail to the appellants as facts of said case and present case are altogether different and distinguishable in view of the fact that appointment of appellants was not under any service rules and they were engaged as volunteers. (iii) In view of dictum of law laid down by Supreme Court in the decision Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 there is no question of issuing any direction to the respondents for granting benefit of regularization or absorption who are admittedly appointed as volunteers by the Govt. under Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 and Rajasthan Home Guards Rules, 1962. (iv) Voluntary service of Home Guards cannot be termed as an employment under the State and thus the appellants cannot claim parity in employment as permanent employees. (v) In view of dictum of law laid down by Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case that appellants who are admittedly not appointed under any service rules against sanctioned posts cannot be given any parity for the purpose of permanent status of an employee of the State. (vi) Having accepted their voluntary engagement as Border Wing Home Guards with open eyes the appellants cannot claim regularization of their services even after rendering long service. 12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellants have filed the present appeals. 13. (vi) Having accepted their voluntary engagement as Border Wing Home Guards with open eyes the appellants cannot claim regularization of their services even after rendering long service. 12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellants have filed the present appeals. 13. From the aforesaid factual narration, it is clear that the central issue involved in the present case revolves around the character and status of appellants, namely, whether appellants i.e. members of Border Wing of Home Guards of State Rajasthan are to be treated as 'volunteers' or they are to be treated as permanent employees (like other employees) under the State of Rajasthan. Secondly, whether there can be any direction by this Court for regularization of services of the appellants. 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants urged that in view of the chart submitted in SAW No.769/2009 it is apparent that the appellants have worked continuously for periods ranging between 25 to 32 years and in different years have worked for about 200 days. Learned counsel urged that Border Wing Home Guards were raised in 7 States and in 5 States by judicial orders their services have been directed to be regularized and thus, learned counsel urged that there is no reason to deny benefit to the appellants especially keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court UOI & Ors. vs. Parul Debnath & Ors., (2009) 14 SCC 173 15. The controversy regarding character and status of members of Home Guards has been considered by courts in various judicial pronouncements rendered. 16. The first decision rendered by Supreme Court relating to Home Guards is decision dated July 30, 1991 passed in SLP (Civil) No.12465/1990 titled as Rameshwar Dass Sharma vs. State of Punjab. The facts of said case are that various persons working as Home Guards in State of Punjab had filed a writ in Punjab and Haryana High Court praying for regularization of their service and grant of regular pay scales. The State of Punjab had taken preliminary objections that Home Guards Volunteers are paid daily allowances for the period they are called; they cannot be equated with regular salary/wages paid employees; they are not regular employees of State of Punjab and their appointments are on voluntary basis and they are paid only daily allowance for the called duty period. The High Court dismissed the petition in view of preliminary objections taken by the State of Punjab. The High Court dismissed the petition in view of preliminary objections taken by the State of Punjab. The matter went to the Supreme Court which dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Home Guards of State of Punjab in the following terms: - "Heard petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondent. The counter affidavit indicates that the Home Guards who are ordinarily demobilized Army Personnel are employed on the basis of temporary need from time to time and in case they are called back to do work with arms in hands, they are paid at the rate of ' 30/- per day on the basis of eight hours working during the day, or otherwise they are paid at the rate of ' 25/- per day. Petitioner, according to the respondent, being an employee under the system cannot ask for regularization. In such circumstances, we do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any relief. We have impressed upon learned counsel, however, to find out from the Home Guard Organization if in any manner, the petitioner can be accommodated in a limited way. The Special Leave Petition and the interlocutory application are disposed of accordingly." 17. Another significant decision on the aspect is decision rendered by Division Bench of High Court of Delhi reported as Rajesh Mishra & Ors vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi, (2002) 98 D.L.T 624 . In the said case, the issue regarding status of the home guards appointed in terms of the Bombay Home Guard Act, 1947 as extended to Delhi was involved. (Be it noted here that provisions of Bombay Home Guard Act, 1947 is in pari materia to the provisions of Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963). 18. After a detailed analysis of provisions of Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947 and the Rules framed there under the Division Bench held as follows: - "The said Act postulates that the Home Guards would be a voluntary organization and the services of the members thereof can be requisitioned as and when required by the Commandant in the interest of the country. The said Act and the Rules further postulate that the members of the Force would be volunteers. 21. The said Act and the Rules further postulate that the members of the Force would be volunteers. 21. The petitioners having not questioned the vires of Section 2 of the said Act and the relevant Rules before the Tribunal cannot be permitted to raise the said contentions for the first time before this Court. 22. In Man Sukh Lal Rawal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 4286 of 1997 decided on 26.05.1999 a Division Bench of this Court having regard to the provisions of the said Act, inter alia, held:- "The two questions that have been raised by the petitioners before us are whether they are entitled to be regularized as members of the Home Guards, and whether their services can be terminated without following the procedure laid down by Rule 8 of the Rules. In so far as the first question is concerned, the genesis, history and concept of the Home Guards clearly show that it is not an "employment" or a "source of employment". It is a volunteer body where citizens voluntarily offer their services for the benefit of society. There are no hard and fast rules for recruitment or the nature of duties and functions that are to be performed by a member of the Home Guards. It is also not as if a member of the Home Guards cannot have employment elsewhere. A member of the Home Guards can be a professional or a government servant or a person carrying on any trade or occupation, industrial worker, university student, etc.; it can be anyone who can give some spare time for the benefit of the community. In fact, of the applicants who were before the Tribunal, admittedly some of them were employed in the government and some in the private sector. This being the position, there cannot be any question of regularizing any person as a volunteer or for carrying on any voluntary activity. A contrary view will destroy the very ethos and character of the Home Guards." 23. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 12465/90 in the case of Rameshwar Dass Sharma and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., it was held:- "In this view of the matter, we have no doubt in our minds that the petitioners are not entitled to be regularized as members of the Home Guards. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 12465/90 in the case of Rameshwar Dass Sharma and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., it was held:- "In this view of the matter, we have no doubt in our minds that the petitioners are not entitled to be regularized as members of the Home Guards. In fact, such a concept does not exist except in the case of personnel involved in training, command or control." 24. The ratio of the said decision, therefore, runs contrary to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. x xx xx 28. It is not in dispute that having regard to the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed there under and keeping in view the several decisions of this Court as also the Supreme Court of India, the organization of the Home Guards is a voluntary organization. 29. If authorities for their own benefit had been mis-utilizing the same, action can be taken against them, but thereby no legal right can be said to have been acquired by the petitioners to which they are not entitled to there under. 30. If the submission of Mr. Sabharwal having regard to the fact that the petitioners had been continuously working with various Departments including Police, Railways, etc. between 12 to 13 years and thus in truth and substance, they are not a part of the volunteer work force is accepted, such appointments must be held to be contrary to the purpose and object which the provisions of the Act seek to achieve. x xx xx 50. In view of the aforementioned binding precedents of this Court, we are of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be said to be the civil servants and as such the Tribunal has rightly held that they have no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act." 19. Thereafter came the decision of Supreme Court State of Manipur & Anr. Vs Ksh. Moirangninthou Singh, (2007) 10 SCC 544 . The factual backdrop of the case has been noted in the decision in following terms: - "3. It appears that the respondents had filed several writ petitions in the Guwahati High Court inter alia praying that their services be regularized in the Home Guards and that they be given regular pay scales. 4. Moirangninthou Singh, (2007) 10 SCC 544 . The factual backdrop of the case has been noted in the decision in following terms: - "3. It appears that the respondents had filed several writ petitions in the Guwahati High Court inter alia praying that their services be regularized in the Home Guards and that they be given regular pay scales. 4. The learned Single Judge by his Judgment directed the state Government to regularize the services of the writ petitioners and to grant them all service benefits, including pensionary benefits, as are payable to government employees holding civil posts. The learned Single Judge also directed that the serices of the employees who have put in 10 years' of service in the Home Guards should be regularized. The learned Single Judge further directed amendment of the Rules and the Act. 5. Against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge an appeal was filed before the Division Bench. 6. The Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had no power to direct amendment of the Act and the Rules, and we fully agree with this view since the Act can be amended only by the Legislature and the Rules can only be amended by the State Government, or the empowered under the Manipur Home Guards Act, 1947. However, the Division Bench upheld the other directions given in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge." 20. After noting the provisions of Sections 4(4) and 8 of Manipur Home Guards Act, 1996 which lay down that Home Guards of Manipur shall be an auxiliary force and assist Manipur Police as and when they are called, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "7. We are of the opinion that in view of the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 , this Court cannot direct regularization in service. Since the Court has no power to direct regularization, it also follows that it has no power to direct grant of benefits payable to the regular employees. 8. It may be noted that home Guards Act has been constituted as a voluntary organization for service in emergencies and hence it cannot be treated at par with other organizations like the army, para military organizations or the civil police. x xx xx 12. 8. It may be noted that home Guards Act has been constituted as a voluntary organization for service in emergencies and hence it cannot be treated at par with other organizations like the army, para military organizations or the civil police. x xx xx 12. A perusal of the provisions of the Home Guards Act and Rules show that the Home Guards was meant to be a reserve force which was to be utilized in emergencies, but it was not a service like the police, para military force, or army, and there is no right in a member to continue till the age of 55 years. We approve the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Rajesh Mishra v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2002) 98 D.L.T 624 (DB). x xx xx 14. The concept of Home Guards was of a voluntary citizen force as auxiliary to the police for maintaining law and order and for meeting emergencies like floods, fires, famine etc. and for civil defence. 15. For the reasons given above these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench as well as of the learned Single Judge are set aside and the writ petitions filed in the Guwahati High Court are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 21. The next decision on the point is decision of Supreme Court Jiben Krishna Mondal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2015) 12 SCC 74 The question involved in the said case was: 'Whether members of West Bengal Home Guards are in services of the State and whether they are entitled for regularization of their services or any other relief.' 22. After a detailed analysis of provisions of West Bengal Home Guards Act, 1962 and West Bengal Home Guard Rules, 1963 (which are pari-materia to provisions of Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 and Rajasthan Home Guards Rules, 1962), the Supreme Court held as follows: - "4. From plain reading of the aforesaid Rules, the following facts emerge: (i) West Bengal Home Guards are enrolled as member of the Home Guard in the form set out in Schedule A of the Rules. (ii) The Home Guards shall ordinarily be volunteers and unpaid. But the State Government may determine the allowances to be paid to the members of the Home Guard when they are called out for duty. (ii) The Home Guards shall ordinarily be volunteers and unpaid. But the State Government may determine the allowances to be paid to the members of the Home Guard when they are called out for duty. (iii) There is no fixed duty for members of the Home Guard. When they are called out for duty, they shall assist the police force in the protection of civil population against the forces of crime and disorder. They have to work in close touch with Civil Defence Organization and have to perform such duties in connection/with the protection of persons, the security of property or the public safety as the State Government may, from time to time, determine. x xx x 17. In Rajesh Mishra v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2002) 98 D.L.T 624 , the High Court speaking through S.B. Sinha, J held that that the Home Guards is a voluntary organization and there is no Master-Servant relationship between Government and Home Guards. It was held that they are not civil servants and they cannot move before the Tribunal u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. 18. In State of Manipur and another v. Ksh. Moirangninthou Singh and others, (2007) 10 SCC 544 , this Court reiterated the voluntary nature of service of members of Home Guard and held: 19. A Careful perusal of genesis of Home Guards and its role will show that the Organization was always meant to be voluntary and it consisted of people from all walks of life. In fact Government servants were also enrolled in the Home Guards to be called as and when the need arises. A large number of State enactments i.e. Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1948, Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947, Assam Home Guards Act, 1947, Manipur Home Guards Act, 1966, Madhya Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1947, Punjab Home Guard Act, 1947, Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 etc. placed before this Court in compilation by learned Attorney General during the hearing makes it clear that the provisions of all these enactments are more or less similar. The voluntary nature is a basic feature of the Home Guards. 20. Majority of the appellants has attained the maximum age and are no more members of the Home Guards. The appointment letters enclosed by the remaining category of appellants, do not suggest that they are performing duty all over the year like any Government servant. The voluntary nature is a basic feature of the Home Guards. 20. Majority of the appellants has attained the maximum age and are no more members of the Home Guards. The appointment letters enclosed by the remaining category of appellants, do not suggest that they are performing duty all over the year like any Government servant. There is nothing on the record to suggest the master-servant relationship. They were appointed pursuant to Home Guard Rules, 1962 and it is made clear that their services are voluntary and will not get any pay but the duty allowance as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time. 21. In that view of the matter, we hold that the appellants are not entitled for regularization of service. Further, in absence of any comparison of duties, responsibilities, accountability and status, they may not be equated with the Police Constables or personnel to claim parity with the pay or scale of pay as provided to the Police personnel. The High Court by the impugned judgment and orders rightly refused to grant regularization of their services. We find no merit in these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed." 23. The last decision on the aspect is decision of Supreme Court Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, (2015) 6 SCC 247 . The question involved in the said case was that whether Home Guards of States of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and N.C.T of Delhi are regular appointees in the cadre/services of Home Guards and if not whether they are entitled for regularization of their services. Most significantly, the plea taken by the appellants was that they i.e. appellants are working as Home Guards without any break for about 10 to 30 years. Inspite of the same, they were not given any benefits available to regular employees. It was contended that they have neither been granted regular pay scale, nor have their services regularized. On the other hand, it was argued by the State Govts. that the appellants were appointed as Home Guards volunteers, working on honorary basis and hence are entitled only for duty allowance as per the schemes i.e. Acts and Rules framed for the said purpose. 24. On the other hand, it was argued by the State Govts. that the appellants were appointed as Home Guards volunteers, working on honorary basis and hence are entitled only for duty allowance as per the schemes i.e. Acts and Rules framed for the said purpose. 24. After a detailed analysis of Genesis' of Home Guards Organization and relevant provisions of Acts and Rules framed by different States with regard to Home Guards Organization, the Court held as follows: - "37. It is not the case of the State Government that enrollment/appointments of the Home Guards were backdoor engagement and illegal made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the decision of this Court in Umadevi(3) is not applicable in the case of the appellants-Home Guards. Admittedly, there is no concept of wages. These volunteers are paid duty allowance and other allowances to which they are entitled. There is nothing on the record to suggest that they performed duties through out the year. 38. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the State that as and when there is requirement they were called for duty and otherwise they remained in their homes. Therefore, in absence of any details about continuity of service, month to month basis or year to year basis, the duties and responsibilities performed by them through out the year can neither be equated with that of police personnel. x xx x 42. In view of the discussion made above, no relief can be granted to the appellants either regularization of services or grant of regular appointments hence no interference is called for against the judgments passed by the Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Delhi High Courts." 25. Whilst it may be true that in Parul Debnath's case the Supreme Court granted relief to the Home Guards in Andaman and Nicobar islands keeping in view the Home Guard Regulations, 1964 but it be noted here that in coming to aforesaid conclusion in Grah Rakshak's case, the Supreme Court had noted its earlier decision in Pantha Chatterjee's case and Parul Debnath's case relied upon by the appellants and distinguished the same in view of the provisions of the different Home Guard Act and Rules. 26. 26. In view of ratio of law laid down in afore-noted judicial pronouncements wherein pari-materia provisions came to the Rajasthan Home Guards Acts and Rules were considered and it was specifically held that no relief for regularization can be granted we have no hesitation in holding that: 'The appellants are not entitled for regularization of service in view of voluntary nature of their service. Further, in absence of any comparison of duties, responsibilities, accountability and status, they shall not be equated with permanent employees of State of Rajasthan to claim parity of pay with such employees.' 27. The appeals are dismissed. 28. No costs.