JUDGMENT : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. 1. The appellant is the widow of a Home Guard, who was deputed at Shyamali Branch of Bank of India, Doranda, Ranchi. He died in a road accident on 29.03.2010. The deceased husband of the appellant was engaged as Home Guard in the year 1991 by the competent authority of the erstwhile State of Bihar. 2. Before the learned first court, the appellant had sought death-cum-retiral gratuity and other benefits, which plea was rejected. The reasons for rejection would appear from the judgement under appeal itself. The learned First Court held:- “2. Petitioner’s husband was enrolled as Home Guard after he completed his training at Central Training Institute, Home Guard from 20.11.1991 to 17.12.1991 and he was issued an identity card. The petitioner claims that her husband was deputed as Home Guard at Shyamali Branch of Bank of India, Doranda, Ranchi and while posted there he died in a road accident on 29.03.2010. On her representation the Commandant Home Guard, Ranchi has written letter to the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Shyamali, Doranda, Ranchi referring to letter dated 28.05.1997 issued by the Government of India under which it is indicated that on death of Home Guards during duty their dependents shall be paid benefits payable to the police personnel. A copy of letter dated 14.02.2008 has also been placed along with the writ petition to fortify the claim of the petitioner for death-cum-retiral gratuity and other benefits. 3. Under the Home Guard Act a person enrolled as Home Guard is not a government employee. Petitioner’s husband was not paid salary by the State Government. His deputation with Shyamali Branch of Bank of India would not give rise to a claim by his wife for death-cum-retiral benefits. The letter dated 28.05.1997 is not a direction issued by the Government of India. It is a mere communication in terms of which the Agency, in this case Bank of India, is required to formulate a scheme or implement the scheme, if any, formulated by the State Government in this regard. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, more particularly petitioner’s husband not being a government employee, no direction for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits to the petitioner can be issued.” 3. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, more particularly petitioner’s husband not being a government employee, no direction for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits to the petitioner can be issued.” 3. It is not in dispute before us that the appellant would not have had been entitled to the same reliefs on death of her husband as that of a regular government employee. There is however resolution of the State Government bearing No. 4001 dated 23.10.2009, which records:- ^^la[;k&4@gksŒxkŒLFkkŒ&20@2009 4001@drZO; ds nkSjku lkekU; fLFkfr esa e`R;q gksus ij x`g j{kk okfguh ds Lo;a lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dks 50]000@& ¼ipkl gtkj½ :i;k ek= ,d eq'r vuqnku fn;s tkus dk Áko/kku x`g ¼fo'ks"k½ foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk ds ladYi la[;k 868 fnukad 01-09-1999 ds }kjk fy;k x;k FkkA 1- x`g j{kk okfguh ds Lo;a lsodksa dh ek¡x ij lgkuqHkwfr iwoZd fopkj fd;k x;k fd x`g j{kd ljdkj ds LFkk;h deZpkjh ugha gSA fdUrq drZO; HkRrs ds vk/kkj ij budh lsok vkikr fLFkfr esa Hkh yh tkrh gS rFkk fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkkafr ej.kksaijkUr bUgsa vuqxzg vuqnku ds vfrfjDr vU; lqfo/kk,¡ miyC/k ugha gSA mijksDr fLFkfr ij fopkj djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj }kjk x`g j{kdksa dks fn;s tkus okys vuqxzg vuqnku dh jkf'k 50]000@& ¼ipkl gtkj½ :i;k ek= ls c<+kdj 2]00]000@& ¼nks yk[k½ :i;s ek= djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS rkfd muds vkfJrksa dks Hkj.k&iks"k.k dk ,d lkekU; Lrj miyC/k gks ldsA 2- mDr jkf'k dk fodyu vk; O;; 'kh"kZ ^^2070&vU Á'kklfud lsok,¡&107&gksexkMZ x`g j{kk laca/kh dY;k.k dk;ZØe^^ ds vUrxZr laxr mi'kh"kZ ls gksxkA 3- jkf'k ds fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh iwoZ dh Hkkafr egklekns"Vk >kj[kaM x`g j{kk okfguh eq[;ky;] jkaph gksxsaA 4- çLrko esa foRr foHkkx ,oa lykgdkj ifj"kn dk vuqeksnu çkIr gSA** English Translation “Number-4/Ho.Ga.Stha.-20/2009 – 4001/Provision regarding lump sum payment of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to the dependents of volunteers of Home Guard in case of their death in normal circumstances during duty had been made vide Resolution No.868 dated 01.09.99 of the Home (Special) Department, Bihar Patna. Sympathetic consideration has been made on the demand of volunteers of the Home Guard Battalion that the Home Guards are not a permanent employee of the government. However, their services are also taken in case of emergency on the basis of duty allowances and after their death, except ex-gratia payment, other facilities are not available to them like regular employees. Sympathetic consideration has been made on the demand of volunteers of the Home Guard Battalion that the Home Guards are not a permanent employee of the government. However, their services are also taken in case of emergency on the basis of duty allowances and after their death, except ex-gratia payment, other facilities are not available to them like regular employees. Considering the above circumstances, it has been decided by the State Government to increase the amount of ex-gratia given to the Home Guards from Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakh) so that the general level of livelihood may be available to their dependents. 2. The deduction of the above amount shall be made from the relevant sub-head under the Budget head “2070 – the others administrative services – 107- the welfare program related to Home Guard”. 3. As earlier, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer for the amount shall be Commandant General, Jharkhand Home Guard Battalion headquarter, Ranchi. 4. The approval of the Department of Finance and the Advisory Board has been received on the proposal.” 4. At this appeal stage, the eligibility of the appellant to get Rs. 2 lakhs is not in controversy. The dispute which has surfaced before us is as to whether the State would pay the said sum or the bank. State’s stand is that since the deceased Home Guard was deputed to work in the bank, it would be the Bank’s responsibility. The Bank’s stand is that since his service was under control of the State, the responsibility would be that of the State. The State and the Bank of India, the latter being a public sector unit are now trying to shift each other’s liability or obligation to pay the aforesaid sum. Two affidavits have been filed by the State and the Bank in which they have disputed their respective liabilities for death of a Home Guard while on deputation duty. 5. Having regard to the resolution to which we have referred to above, we do not think there is any scope of disputing the appellant’s right to receive Rs. 2 lakhs. The appellant now cannot engage into a protracted legal battle for Rs.2 lakhs to determine from whom she should get the amount, whether the State or the Bank. 5. Having regard to the resolution to which we have referred to above, we do not think there is any scope of disputing the appellant’s right to receive Rs. 2 lakhs. The appellant now cannot engage into a protracted legal battle for Rs.2 lakhs to determine from whom she should get the amount, whether the State or the Bank. The appellant passed away after serving for about 20 years as Home Guard and we are of opinion that Home Guard being primarily a State engagee, the State should pay the appellant at the first instance a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 20,000/- in addition as litigation costs. It would be for the State and the Bank to settle between themselves on whom the obligation to meet such dues fall. If it is found that it is the Bank’s obligation, then the State shall be at liberty to recover the said sum of Rs. 2 lakhs along with the costs of Rs. 20,000/- from the Bank through regular legal means. If it is found on the other hand that it was the obligation of the State to pay, then no further action would be warranted. Such sum shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order by way of pay order or NEFT(National Electronic Fund Transfer) and for this purpose while communicating the order, the appellant shall disclose the bank account where the money is to be deposited. The judgment of the learned first court stands modified to the above extent. 6. The appeal stands disposed of.