Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 163 (ORI)

State of Odisha v. Prakash Kumar Jena

2020-08-19

A.K.MISHRA, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2020
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.8148 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the applicants (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein) namely; Prakash Kumar Jena, Prasanna Kumar Behera and Lokanath Mohanta, has been allowed with the following directions: " xx xx xx 12. For inordinate delay in implementation of the direction of the Hon’ble apex Court by the State of Odisha even after the direction of the Government of India, this Court while allowing the writ petition directs the State Government in compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble apex Court, vide Civil Appeals and Contempt Petition referred to herein above following the Government of India directives taken note and further as this Court finds, the recommendation of the Director General is strictly in terms of the apex Court’s clarification in the Contempt Petition referred to herein above, to forthwith implement the recommendation of the Director General (Fire Service, Home Guards, Civil Defence), Odisha in respect of all the Home Guards in the State of Odisha, keeping in view to have a check of flooding of writ petitions by each of the Home Guards on the role of the State to this Court. While taking decision, State is also directed to take into account the increase in the Pay of the Constables on application of the 7th Pay Commission’s report. Entire exercise be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order by either party. 13. For the Director General of Police, Odisha recommended payment at the minimum a sum of Rs.533/- per day taking into consideration the remuneration available to the Constables in the State of Odisha in the lowest rank in the police personnel since 10.11.2016, this Court while granting time to the State Government to implement the recommendation of the Director General at Annexure-4 within a period of one month also keeping in view the observations herein above directs that the Home Guards in the State of Odisha pending decision on final fitment be paid provisionally at the minimum Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred) from January, 2020. This payment will however be subject to the final decision of the Government of Odisha on implementation of the recommendation of the Director General. This payment will however be subject to the final decision of the Government of Odisha on implementation of the recommendation of the Director General. Arrear, if any, likely to be accrued on account of the ultimate decision of the State Government shall also be paid to all Home Guards within a period of three months thereafter. 14. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to cost. Free copy of this judgment be supplied to Sri S.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for information and implementation by the State." 2. According to the case set up by the respondents in the writ petition, they are working as Home Guards for more than 10 years under the Home Department of appellants-State of Odisha. In the writ petition, they sought a direction to the appellant-State of Odisha to disburse their salary as per the direction of the Apex Court in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2015) 6 SCC 247 and subsequent order dated 04.05.2016 passed in a contempt petition i.e. Contempt Petition (C) No.699-700 of 2015, by which the Apex Court has clarified its earlier order. Prayer was also made by the respondents to give them benefit of 7th Pay Commission from the date this has been given to their counter parts by other States. 3. The Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association, (supra) considered the working conditions of the Home Guards in different States of the Country, especially, the State of Himachal Pradesh, Bombay, and NCT of Delhi. While reiterating its earlier view that the ‘Home Guards’ is a volunteer organization, the Supreme Court held that their enrolment cannot be considered as an appointment on regular basis. They are not paid salary as is granted to the regular employee but are only paid Duty Allowance and other allowances. But at the same time, the Supreme Court observed that it was not the case of the State Governments that enrollment/appointments of the Home Guards were back door engagement and were made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and on that basis, it held that the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 , would not be applicable to their case. Observing that the Home Guards are paid duty allowances and other allowances only for the period of time they are required to perform their duty, the Supreme Court held that no relief can be granted to the appellants either of regularization in services or of regular appointment. The Supreme Court however allowed the appeals in part with the following directions: "22. 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. However, taking into consideration the fact that Home Guards are used during the emergency and for other purposes and at the time of their duty they are empowered with the power of police personnel, we are of the view that the State Government should pay them the duty allowance at such rates, total of which 30 days (a month) comes to minimum of the pay to which the police personnel of State are entitled. It is expected that the State Governments shall pass appropriate orders in terms of aforesaid observation on an early date preferably within three months." (Para-39 of the report in SCC) 4. Since there was a dispute with regard to interpretation of "minimum of the pay to which the police personnel of the State are entitled”, payment of which was directed by the Supreme Court in above para-22 of Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association, (supra), the Supreme Court clarified the said direction by its order dated 04.05.2016 in Contempt Petition (C) Nos.699-700 of 2015 in the following terms: " xx xx xx After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the expression “minimum of the pay” mentioned in paragraph 22 is intended to mean not only the basic pay + grade pay, but also the dearness allowance that comes along with the basic pay and grade pay. This is in the context of the view expressed by this Court denying regular appointments to the petitioners, while taking into consideration the fact that the services of the Home Guards are used during an emergency and for other purposes and at the time of their duty they are empowered with the power of police personnel. This is in the context of the view expressed by this Court denying regular appointments to the petitioners, while taking into consideration the fact that the services of the Home Guards are used during an emergency and for other purposes and at the time of their duty they are empowered with the power of police personnel. Accordingly, we make it clear that the word “minimum of the pay” used in paragraph 22 of the judgment and order dated 11th March, 2015 means the basic pay + grade pay + dearness allowance + washing allowance. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the respondents to a decision of this Court in Jiban Krishna Mondal and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others [ (2015) 12 SCC 74 ]. We have gone through the judgment with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that the judgment is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the case inasmuch as that case did not concern itself with the grant of pay to the Home Guards. So far as the present case is concerned, relief of regularization was declined, but this Court directed the payment of minimum of the pay which, as we have explained above, would mean basic pay + grade pay + dearness allowance + washing allowance. However, we make it clear that the pay that is given to the petitioners will not be on a monthly basis, but will be calculated with reference to each day of work put in by the petitioners. The contempt petitions are disposed of in view of the above." 5. Mr. J.P. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants-State of Odisha argued that Home Guards are paid remuneration of Rs.9000/-@ Rs.300/-per day, which is equivalent to the salary of a contractual Constable appointed at the entry level after implementation of the 7th Pay Commission. They are not entitled to regular salary i.e. Grade Pay & D.A. As per Rule 9(2) of the Odisha Group-C & Group-D (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013., a person appointed in Group-C & Group-D post draws consolidated monthly remuneration equal to the initial of the corresponding pay plus and grade pay. Therefore, the Police Constables in the State of Odisha, are initially appointed on contractual basis. Therefore, the Police Constables in the State of Odisha, are initially appointed on contractual basis. It is only after completion of six years of service that such Contracutual Constables are treated to be regular in service and thereafter get D.A. and other allowances with their basic pay as per 7th Pay Commission. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate also submitted that this position was clarified by the State in their counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge. Yet the learned Single Judge has erred in law in allowing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has committed error of law by directing the State to implement the recommendation of the Directorate General (Fire Service, Home Guards, Civil Defence), Odisha in respect of all the Home Guards in the State in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court referred to supra. At the maximum, a direction could have been issued to examine the case of the Home Guards in the State of Odisha as to pay them "minimum of the pay" which is being paid to Contractual Constables appointed under Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 2013. The direction of the learned Single Judge to implement recommendation of the Directorate General (Fire Service, Home Guards, Civil Defence), Odisha to pay minimum of Rs.533/-per day from 10.11.2016 is wholly illegal. Further direction in the impugned judgment to pay provisionally a sum of Rs.500/- to the Home Guards from January, 2020 pending decision of the Government on the recommendation of the Directorate General, Odisha also suffers from serious error of law. 7. Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners submitted that the respondents are working as Home Guards with the State Government for the last more than ten years. Ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association, (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is eminently just and proper. As per the direction of the Supreme Court, the respondents should be paid duty allowance at the rate of "minimum of the pay" to which the police personnel of the State are entitled. It was argued that the Home Guards were getting duty call up allowances @ Rs.240/-per day. As per the direction of the Supreme Court, the respondents should be paid duty allowance at the rate of "minimum of the pay" to which the police personnel of the State are entitled. It was argued that the Home Guards were getting duty call up allowances @ Rs.240/-per day. Accordingly, they were getting a sum of Rs.7200/- for 30 days, which was not at par with minimum of the pay of the Constables. Even as per the recent notification of the Labour Commissioner of Odisha dated 7.11.2019, Skilled employees are paid Rs.388.30 per day and Highly Skilled, paid Rs.448.00 per day as minimum wage. The minimum pay scale payable to the Constables of the police department after implementation of the 6th Pay Commission is Rs.5200/- and Grade Pay Rs.2000/- i.e. Rs.7200/- and after implementation of 7th Pay Commission, the scale of pay of the Constables has been enhanced to Rs.9000/- at initial stage thereby a Constable is now entitled to receive Rs.21,700/- including other allowances. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents concluded with the submission that the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has taken note of the averments in the affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary of the State, admitting that most of the Home Guards in the State have completed more than 10 years of service, and many of them have even completed more than 15 years of service. The learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition because many States like Punjab, Chhatisgarh, Maharashtra, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Goa and NCT of Delhi have already implemented the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court with effect from 2016 itself. In allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has taken into account all these aspects including the fact that the Home Guards are discharging various duties apart from assisting the police personnel in maintaining law and order situation and taking part in controlling the traffic. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, gone through the cited precedents and examined the material on record in detail vis-à-vis the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. 10. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, gone through the cited precedents and examined the material on record in detail vis-à-vis the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. 10. The decision of the Supreme Court dated 11.03.2015 in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association, (supra) arose out of the Civil Appeals filed by the Home Guards of the States of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, and NCT of Delhi, challenging the judgments of the respective High Courts whereby writ petitions filed by them, seeking regularization of their services, were dismissed. The Supreme Court though declined the prayer for regularization but considering the fact that the services of the Home Guards are being used during emergency and for other purposes and that at the time of their duty, they are empowered with the power of police personnel, directed the State Governments to pay them minimum of the pay to which the police personnel of the State are entitled. Since there was a dispute as to what is meant by “minimum of the pay to which of the police personnel of the State are entitled”, the matter again reached the Supreme Court in Contempt Petition No. 699-700 of 2015. The Supreme Court in its order dated 4.05.2016 clarified the aforesaid expression and held that the “minimum of the pay” as mentioned in paragraph 22 of the judgment was intended to mean not only the basic pay + grade pay, but also the dearness allowance that comes along with the basic pay and grade pay, which mean “the basic pay + grade pay + dearness allowance + washing allowance”. The Supreme Court again reiterated in the aforesaid clarificatory order that since the relief of regularization was declined to Home Guards, the direction of payment of minimum of the pay, which was explained to mean “the basic pay + grade pay + dearness allowance + washing allowance”, was passed. It was further clarified that the allowance, which shall be given to the Home Guards, will not be on a monthly basis, but will be calculated with reference to each day of work put in by them. 11. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has taken note of the affidavit filed by the Addl. It was further clarified that the allowance, which shall be given to the Home Guards, will not be on a monthly basis, but will be calculated with reference to each day of work put in by them. 11. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has taken note of the affidavit filed by the Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government of Odisha on 26.02.2020, wherein it was admitted that there are 6413 numbers of Home Guards in the State, who have already completed 15 years of service and above, 5836 nos. of Home Guards, who have already completed 10 years of service but below 15 years of service, 1944 nos. of Home Guards, who have completed service of 06 years but below 10 years and 2701 nos. of Home Guards with service less than 06 years, thus as of now making the total number of Home Guards in the State of Odisha to 16894. It was noted by the learned Single Judge that all Home Guards are discharging their duties for eight hours like that of the Constables. They neither have paid holidays to their credit nor have any promotional prospects. They are required to work for all seven days in a week, and if they are absent for one day, their Daily Allowance is deducted. 12. Learned Single Judge discarded the argument of the learned Addll. Government Advocate on behalf of appellants-State Government, that since the State of Odisha was not a party before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeal as well as in the Contempt Petition, the given judgment shall not be binding on them, and allowed the writ petition by observing that the judgment of the Supreme Court has to be implemented throughout the country as the Government of India has been repeatedly requesting all the States and UTs for doing so. Learned Single Judge on the basis of documents at Annexure-8 series placed on record by the writ petitioners (respondents herein) in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, has also noticed the amount of Duty Allowance being paid to Home Guards in different States, which is reproduced hereunder: “8. Further it appears, pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble apex Court and repeated instructions of the Government of India, the order of Hon’ble apex Court has already been complied with by several States, as appearing at Annexure-8 series. Further it appears, pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble apex Court and repeated instructions of the Government of India, the order of Hon’ble apex Court has already been complied with by several States, as appearing at Annexure-8 series. Documents at Annexure-8 series reveal, particular Home Guard Volunteers in the Union Territory, New Delhi have already been provided with Rs.15,840/-per month, i.e. @ Rs.528/-per day since 15.09.2016. Similarly, the State Government of Goa has also on implementation of the direction of the Hon’ble apex Court has already granted a sum of Rs.18,770/-per month to all such Home Guards, i.e. @ Rs.626/-per day, w.e.f. 01.06.2017. These fixations are of course based on the 6th Pay Commission compliance. On compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble apex Court, it appears, the State Government of Punjab has also implemented the decision of 19 the Hon’ble apex Court. Similarly, State Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, State Govt. of Kerala, State Govt. of Bihar, State Govt. of Chhatishgarh, State Govt. of Maharashtra, State Govt. of Goa and Union Territory, Lakshyadeep have already implemented the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court. In the meantime, State Govt. of Punjab has started paying to the Home Guards a sum of Rs.29,565/-, State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh a sum of Rs.29,565/-, State Govt. of Bihar a sum of Rs.29,565/-, State Govt. of Chhatishgarh a sum of Rs.29,565/-, State Govt. of Maharashtra, a sum of Rs.29,565/-, State Govt. of Haryana a sum of Rs.17,160/-, State Govt. of Himachal Pradesh a sum of Rs.17,134/-, State Govt. of Goa a sum of Rs.18,770/-and State Govt. of Kerala a sum of Rs.18,000/-, Union Territories like Lakshyadeep a sum of Rs.19,260/- and New Delhi a sum of Rs.20,550/-. Some of these States as appears fixed salary on implementation of the 6th Pay recommendation whereas some States as appears fixed after taking into consideration the 7th Pay recommendation.” 13. The only argument learned Addl. of Kerala a sum of Rs.18,000/-, Union Territories like Lakshyadeep a sum of Rs.19,260/- and New Delhi a sum of Rs.20,550/-. Some of these States as appears fixed salary on implementation of the 6th Pay recommendation whereas some States as appears fixed after taking into consideration the 7th Pay recommendation.” 13. The only argument learned Addl. Government Advocate advanced in the present appeal, which was also raised before the learned Single Judge, is that the case of State of Odisha stands on a different footing, reason being that, in view of the Odisha Group-C & Group-D (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 notified vide GA Department Notification No.32010/Gen dated 12.11.2013, at the initial stage of appointment of police personnel in the lowest rank i.e., Constables in the Police Department, are being appointed on contract basis for first 06 years’ of service and such Contractual Constables are paid only Rs.7200/-(Rs.5200 Pay + Rs.2000/-G.P.) as per 6th pay Commission. Even after implementation of the 7th Pay Commission, the monthly consolidated remuneration of such Constables at the entry level was revised to Rs.9000/-per month. Accordingly, the Home Guards of the State have also been allowed Daily Allowance @ 300/-per day which comes to Rs.9000/-per month, at par with the State Police Constables (contractual) at entry level. Argument is that if the Home Guards are paid Daily Allowance of Rs.500/-per day, as directed by the learned Single Judge, it will come to Rs.15,000/-per month, which will be in excess of the present remuneration of the Contractual Constables recruited at initial stage. This may cause gross discontentment among the Constables and other similarly situated employees recruited as per Odisha Group-C & Group-D (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013. Learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the above facts. 14. In order to understand the nature of engagement and the kind of duties the Home Guards discharge, a brief survey of the Odisha Home Guards Act, 1961 would not be out of place here. Learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the above facts. 14. In order to understand the nature of engagement and the kind of duties the Home Guards discharge, a brief survey of the Odisha Home Guards Act, 1961 would not be out of place here. Section 2 (1) thereof provides that the State Government shall constitute for the areas notified under sub-section (3) of Section 1, 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 and for such other functions as may be assigned to them in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 4(1) of the said Act provides that the Commandant-General or the Commandant within the district under his jurisdiction, may, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), call upon any member of the Home Guards for training or for discharging any function assigned to him by or under the said Act. Section 5 of the said Act refers to the power, privileges and protection of the Home Guards. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that “A member of the Home Guards when called out under Section 4 shall have the same powers, privileges and protection as an officer of Police appointed under any law for the time being force.” Sub-section (2) of Section 5 provides “No prosecution shall be instituted against a member of the Home Guards in respect of anything done or purporting to be done by him in the discharge of his functions or duties as such member except with the previous sanction of the Commandant General”. The provisions of the Act, therefore make it clear that even though Home Guards called in the aid of the Police force, are meant to be a reserve force, which has to be utilized in emergencies, it was not a service like the police, paramilitary force or army, as held by the Supreme Court in State of Manipur and another vs. Ksh. Moirangninthou Singh and others, (2007) 10 SCC 544 . 15. Moirangninthou Singh and others, (2007) 10 SCC 544 . 15. In our view, learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the aforesaid argument by observing that if the State Government has created any post of Contractual Constable, as per the Rules of 2013, outside the cadre of police personnel, this development has nothing to do with the case at hand. We do not find any infirmity with the view taken by the learned Single Judge because, what is mentioned by the Supreme Court in paragraph 22 of the aforesaid judgment is that the State Government should pay to the Home Guards the duty allowance at such rates, total of which (30 days -a month) comes to minimum of the pay to which the police personnel of State are entitled. It is peculiar to the State of Odisha that the contractual appointments are regulated by statutory rules, entitling such appointees to regularization after satisfactory completion of six years in service. Curiously enough, even the Constables, who are supposed to be members of police force, subject to the Police Act, 1861, are also initially appointed on contractual basis. Constables appointed on regular establishment of the Police constitute a distinct and separate class than those appointed on contractual basis. Surely, the Supreme Court by use of the phraseology “minimum of the pay to which Police Personnel of the State are entitled,” intended to refer to Constables appointed on regular establishment and not on contractual basis. Nature of duties and conditions of service of the Home Guards throughout the country are almost identical and are similar to those of the Constable in regular establishment of the Police. This was why the Supreme Court taking note of their plight has issued uniform directions for paying them the minimum of the pay to which a police personnel of the State is entitled, but they shall be paid the duty call allowance only for such number of days they are called on duty. In that view of the matter, the Government of India also time and again reminded all the State Governments and UTs to implement the aforesaid direction. As would be evident from paragraph-8 of the impugned judgment, the said direction of the Supreme Court, has already been complied with by the several States like Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Bihar, Chhatishgarh, Maharashtra, Goa, NCT of Delhi and Union Territory of Lakhyadeep etc. As would be evident from paragraph-8 of the impugned judgment, the said direction of the Supreme Court, has already been complied with by the several States like Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Bihar, Chhatishgarh, Maharashtra, Goa, NCT of Delhi and Union Territory of Lakhyadeep etc. It is also evident from the table given in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, in that regard. 16. We may also usefully refer to the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in State of Uttarakhand & Ors. Vs. Shiv Prasad Sharma & Anr.(Special Appeal Nos. 489 of 2017, 490 of 2017, 491 of 2017, 492 of 2017) decided on 17-04-2018, wherein the High Court in their judgment has taken note of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court so also the judgments passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Delhi High Court, and Allahabad High Court, allowing similar writ petitions, and allowed the appeal in part, directing the State of Uttarakhand to extend same benefits to Home Guards which was provided in paragraph 22 of the judgment in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association, (supra). 17. Perusal of the record reveals that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide their letter dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) requested the Chief Secretaries of the all States and Union Territories with reference to the aforementioned judgment and order of the Supreme Court dated 4.5.2016 to issue necessary directions to the concerned authorities for compliance of the said judgment. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs wrote letter dated 05.10.2016 to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Odisha (Annexure-3/I to the writ petition) about disobedience to the order dated 4.5.2016 passed by the Supreme Court of India regarding payment of Home Guards’ salary. It was thereafter that the Commandant General, Home Guards, Odisha, Cuttack wrote the letter dated 10.11.2016 to the Principal Secretary to Govt. It was thereafter that the Commandant General, Home Guards, Odisha, Cuttack wrote the letter dated 10.11.2016 to the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Odisha, Home Department, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) stating therein that the Home Guards Volunteers as auxiliary to Police and Fire Services are being utilized to assist the Police and Fire Service Personnel in various duties like Law and Order, Night Paroling, Guard Duty, Traffic and also at different Fire Stations, as per Section 5 of the Odisha Home Guards Act, 1961, and a member of the Home Guards when called out under Section 4 shall have the same powers, privileges and protection as an Officer of Police appointed under any law for the time being in force. It was also mentioned in that letter that the present sanctioned strength of Home Guards Volunteers of Odisha State is 17,675, who are utilized throughout the year for 365 days or 366 days. This letter also mentioned that presently, the Home Guards Volunteers of the Odisha State are getting Rs.240/-as DCA per day and in case they are paid the DCA equivalent to the minimum of the pay of a Police Personnel in the lowest rank i.e. Constable of Police i.e. Pay+Grade Pay+DA+Washing Allowance, the daily duty allowance will be @ Rs.533/-per day, besides their Washing Allowance of Rs.25/-per month. 18. Coming now to the final relief granted to the respondents, perusal of the operative part of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Single Judge has directed the State Government to implement the recommendation of the Directorate General (Fire Service, Home Guards, Civil Defence), Odisha for payment at the minimum sum of Rs.533/-per day taking into consideration the remuneration paid to the Constables in the State of Odisha in the lowest rank in the police personnel from 10.11.2016 and pending decision thereon, to pay them provisionally at the rate of minimum Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred) per day from January, 2020. Considering the entire facts situation of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment except that we are persuaded to modify the directive portion of the impugned judgment to the limited extent for implementation of the recommendation of the Directorate General (Fire Service, Home Guards, Civil Defence), Odisha for payment at the rate of Rs.533/-per day to the Home Guards from January, 2020, instead of 10.11.2016 as directed by the learned Single Judge and direct that arrears shall be payable to the Home Guards only from January 2020, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. The directive portion in the impugned judgment is modified to the aforesaid extent only. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this appeal is allowed in part. As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this judgment available in the High Court’s official website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.