JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Sema, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland assisted by Ms. Levika, learned Government Advocate for the appellants. Also heard Ms. Akala, learned ASGI appearing for the respondent No. 7 and Mr. Taka Masa, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Tiakumla for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6/writ petitioners. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 33(K)/2017. 3. Brief facts of the case as projected by the writ petitioners is that the petitioners are the Village Guard Association of Nagaland and its office bearers and the association is a Registered Service Association under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as amended and the place of registration is at Tuensang town. 4. According to the petitioners, the Village Guards Association of Nagaland represents the personnel of all Village Guards (VGs for short), serving in the State of Nagaland. VGs was established in the State in the year 1957. Presently, the VGs are employed in Mon, Tuensang, Kiphrie, Longleng, Phek (Meluri Subdivision) districts of Nagaland. The VGs was initially a voluntary force of peasant soldiers. It was established by the Government of Nagaland to maintain law and order and as a counter insurgency force in the rural areas of Nagaland. The role and duties of VGs are primarily for assisting the Police in curbing criminal activities and apprehending criminals within their jurisdiction. They also take the role of first responder during the time of natural calamity for which most of them have been trained. The VGs also help the district administration in the maintenance of law and order in the villages. They perform Road Opening Patrol (ROP) duties for VIP, counter insurgency operations, guides, performing election related duties, parade contingency, Bagpiper Band in a national celebration day, round the clock security duty in their respective villages, guarding the international borders of Myanmar etc. 5. The VGs spread other 320 posts and the organization is headed by the Commissioner, Nagaland as the Ex-officio Commandant General. He is assisted by Commandant, Stationed at Tuensang, 2 (two) Deputy Commandants in Mon and Kiphrie respectively and 10 (ten) Assistant Commandants. According to the petitioner, there are presently about 9579 VG personnels. 6. 5. The VGs spread other 320 posts and the organization is headed by the Commissioner, Nagaland as the Ex-officio Commandant General. He is assisted by Commandant, Stationed at Tuensang, 2 (two) Deputy Commandants in Mon and Kiphrie respectively and 10 (ten) Assistant Commandants. According to the petitioner, there are presently about 9579 VG personnels. 6. It is the further case of the petitioners that the contribution of the VG personnel over the years in furtherance of the national interest is outstanding and especially towards strengthening and improving the overall security in the border areas of the State of Nagaland. The VG personnel have been awarded Ashok Chakra, Shaurya Chakra and many other Gallantry Awards over the years for their distinguish service to the nation. The VGs are trained and are issued rifles and ammunition by the State Government. 7. The petitioners contend that the VG personnel are paid a fixed monthly wage of Rs. 1,500/- per month, ration allowance of Rs. 25/- per day while on duty and a yearly clothing allowance of Rs. 500/-. When they are promoted, they are paid NCOs rank allowance of Rs. 50/- per rank-wise. The VG personnel are entitled for regularization in service only from the rank of Jamadar and above. 8. The petitioner association in its General Executive Meeting held on 25.09.2015 resolved to approach the State Government for revision of their monthly wages and facilities. It was further resolved that in the event of non-fulfillment of their demands, the Office Bearers of the Association were authorised to approach the appropriate redressal forum for justice. 9. The members of the petitioner association in fact had a General Meeting on 24.09.2015 at Tuensang where it was unanimously resolved to approach the State authorities to pay them minimum wages by increasing their monthly pay from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 5,000/-. Further to increase their ration allowance from Rs. 25/- to Rs. 150/- per day and to increase the yearly clothing allowances from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,500/- and also to increase the NCOs allowances from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 500/-. Accordingly, a representation was submitted to the Commissioner and Commandant General, through the Commandant VGs, Tuensang vide Letter dated 28.09.2015. On receipt of the representation, the State Government approached the Govt. 150/- per day and to increase the yearly clothing allowances from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,500/- and also to increase the NCOs allowances from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 500/-. Accordingly, a representation was submitted to the Commissioner and Commandant General, through the Commandant VGs, Tuensang vide Letter dated 28.09.2015. On receipt of the representation, the State Government approached the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, North East Division requesting the examination and consideration for revision of wages/increase in the in the honorarium of the VGs from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month vide Letter dated 30.05.2016. 10. The petitioner association further contend that the Home Guards serving in the State of Nagaland are paid a daily wages of Rs. 150/- w.e.f., 01.03.2012 and which amounts to a fixed salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. The Home Guards are unarmed personnel for Civil Defence whereas, the VGs are armed personnel performing law and order duties. As such, the nature of work of VGs is much more strenuous and risky than the of Home Guards personnel . The petitioner association also cited the Apex Court decision in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2015) 6 SCC 247 where it was held that the State Government should pay the Home Guards the duty allowance at such rates, total of which 30 days a month comes to a minimum of the pay which is entitled to police personnel of the State. The petitioner association therefore contended that the State Government was under active consideration of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 11. The petitioner association thereafter submitted their representation to the Chief Secretary of the State on 18.07.2016, which however was not considered. They again submitted another representation on 28.09.2016 wherein they informed the respondent authorities that they have decided to seek redressal of their grievance by a legal process. That is how the writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner association and its office bearers. 12. After the writ petition was filed by the petitioner association, the direction of the Apex Court in Grah Rakshak Home Guards Welfare Association (supra) was implemented by the State Government vide Notification dated 27.04.2017 by enhancing the duty allowance of Home Guards personnel under the Directorate of Civil Defence and Home Guards, Nagaland from Rs. 12. After the writ petition was filed by the petitioner association, the direction of the Apex Court in Grah Rakshak Home Guards Welfare Association (supra) was implemented by the State Government vide Notification dated 27.04.2017 by enhancing the duty allowance of Home Guards personnel under the Directorate of Civil Defence and Home Guards, Nagaland from Rs. 150/- per head per day to Rs. 520/- per head per day w.e.f., 03.04.2017. To bring the said notification on record, the petitioner association filed an additional affidavit in the month of July 2017. 13. The present State appellants as respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the writ petition filed their affidavit-in-opposition stating inter-alia that the wages and other allowances of VGs are largely reimbursed by the Ministry of Home Affairs under security related expenditure and therefore, the State Government had moved a proposal to the Govt. of India for enhancement of wages and ration allowance. It was further contended that the nature of service conditions of the Home Guards serving in the State and the VGs are different. As per the Silver Jubilee Souvenir, VG is a voluntary force and to compensate them for hindrance in their Kheti works during the performance of operational tasks, the Government gives them a monthly remuneration of Rs. 70/- per month and an annual clothing allowance of Rs. 60/- per year and Rs. 5/- per day as ration money as and when they have to operate outside their villages. Their primary role is to defend their villages against insurgents and terrorists within village areas. The VGs are therefore basically a volunteer village defense force to defend the village. On the other hand, the Home Guards are recruited only after undergoing initial suitability training and are posted anywhere in the State on a full time basis. Whereas, the VGs are selected/nominated by the respective Village Council and appointed by their respective Deputy Commissioner/Commandant and are never posted out of their village unless on duty or specific periods during which they are provided ration allowance. They are purely a voluntary force and may resign at any time. Unless their services are required, the VGs are free to go about their normal cultivation practices and other activities in their respective villages. As of today, they get Rs. 1,500/- per month which in fact are not wages but are in the form of remuneration or honorarium. 14. They are purely a voluntary force and may resign at any time. Unless their services are required, the VGs are free to go about their normal cultivation practices and other activities in their respective villages. As of today, they get Rs. 1,500/- per month which in fact are not wages but are in the form of remuneration or honorarium. 14. The learned Single Judge upon considering the case projected by the rival parties disposed of the writ petition vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 09.11.2017 by directing the State Government to examine and raise the existing wages and allowances of the VGs to a reasonable level but not less than that of the Home Guards of the State, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment & Order. The learned Single Judge further directed that the increase in the wages of allowances should be made effective from 01.01.2017. Thus being highly aggrieved, the State respondents have filed the instant appeal as with appellants. 15. Mention may be made herein that when the writ appeal was taken up for admission on 07.02.2019, this Court was of the view that the Union of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs would be a necessary party and as such, the Union of India represented by the Secretary (Northeast Division), Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-I was made a party as respondent No. 7 in their writ appeal. Accordingly, notice was issued to the respondents and the respondent No. 7 in response to the notice has filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 23.01.2020. In response, the State appellants have filed an affidavit-in-reply on 02.03.2020. 16. Appearing for the State appellants, Mr. K. Sema, the learned Senior Addl. Advocate General submits that VG is a voluntary organization and they are called for duty as and when they are required only. Unless the comparison of the nature of their duties, work, responsibility etc., is complete and established with that of the Home Guards, the direction to grant them a similar pay/wages or honorarium like that of the Home Guards is not justified. He submits that reliance placed upon the case of Grah Rakshak Home Guards Welfare Association (supra) by the learned Single Judge is also misplaced, inasmuch as, the case of the appellant before the Apex Court was for regularization of their service. He submits that reliance placed upon the case of Grah Rakshak Home Guards Welfare Association (supra) by the learned Single Judge is also misplaced, inasmuch as, the case of the appellant before the Apex Court was for regularization of their service. He further submits that the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 relied upon by the learned Singe Judge in fact is not in favour of the writ petitioners, inasmuch as, the principle of equal pay for equal work and the benefit which follows can only be granted after it is established that the compared posts are rendering similar duties and responsibilities. However, in the instant case, the same has not been established by the petitioners and therefore, the application of the said decision in favour of the writ petitioner is misconceived. 17. Mr. K. Sema, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General by referring to the prayer made in the writ petition submits that the writ petitioners have only prayed for minimum wages as prescribed under the law and for increase of their ration and duty allowance including the yearly clothing allowance besides increase in the NCO rank pay. However, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondent authorities to grant the VGs wages and allowances comparable to the Home Guards of the State within a specified time framed. He submits that the said direction was not even the prayer of the petitioner and therefore the impugned judgment & order being misconceived and the same should be set aside. 18. The learned Senior Addl. Advocate General further submits that the burden or onus lies upon the petitioners to establish the fact that the nature of duties and responsibilities of the VGs are comparable to the Home Guards. However, they have failed to established the same and in fact, it is not even their pleaded case as may be seen from the pleadings in the writ petition. He submits that the VGs are not paid wages or allowance but are given honorarium. Therefore, their claim at best would beyond the enhancement of honorarium and not wages. However, they have failed to established the same and in fact, it is not even their pleaded case as may be seen from the pleadings in the writ petition. He submits that the VGs are not paid wages or allowance but are given honorarium. Therefore, their claim at best would beyond the enhancement of honorarium and not wages. The claim of the petitioners for minimum wages is also not maintainable, inasmuch as, wages are given to industrial workers while the VGs are not industrial workers but an organization for maintaining law and order and also to see the difference and security of the villages. 19. The learned State counsel further submits that the mode of recruitment of VGs and Home Guards are not similar. The Home Guards are recruited by selection after they undergo initial suitability training and they are posted anywhere in the State on a full-time basis. VGs, on the other hand, are selected/nominated by the Village Council concerned and appointed by the Deputy Commissioner/Commandant and they are never posted out of the village unless they are sent for specific duty for a specific period. The learned State Counsel submits that the State Government fully appreciates the duties and responsibilities performed by the VGs and for which, they are given honorariums apart from their duty allowance and annual uniform allowance. He submits that in fact their monthly honorarium has been enhanced from Rs. 1,500/- per month to Rs. 3,000/- per month w.e.f., 01.04.2018. He thus submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment & order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the same should be set aside. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Addl. Advocate General relies upon the following authorities:- (i) State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Surjit Singh & Ors., reported in : (2009) 9 SCC 514 . (ii) Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., vs. Dibyendu Bhattacharya,: (2011) 11 SCC 122 . (iii) Grah Rakshak Home Guards Welfare Association (supra). (iv) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors.(supra) 20. Mrs. Akhala, learned ASGI appearing for the respondent No. 7 submits that she adopts the submissions made by the learned Senior Addl. Advocate General. (ii) Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., vs. Dibyendu Bhattacharya,: (2011) 11 SCC 122 . (iii) Grah Rakshak Home Guards Welfare Association (supra). (iv) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors.(supra) 20. Mrs. Akhala, learned ASGI appearing for the respondent No. 7 submits that she adopts the submissions made by the learned Senior Addl. Advocate General. She also refers to paragraph No. 3(a) & (b) of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 7 to contend that there is a vast dissimilarity between VGs and Home Guards. She submits that such being the position, the direction of the learned Single Judge to grant wages and allowances to VGs similar to those given to Home Guards personnel is wholly misplaced if not misconceived. She therefore submits that under the circumstance the impugned judgment & order may be set aside. 21. Mr. Taka Masa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 referring to the prayer No. 2 made in the writ appeal submits that the writ appellants themselves admit that the honorarium and allowances given to the VGs requires enhancement and as such, they have prayed for a direction to the State Government to constitute an expert committee to examine and determine the payment/entitlement of financial benefits to VGs in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Central Government. Therefore, even if the prayer of the petitioners for increase in their honorarium and allowances as demanded by them cannot be accepted, the State Government would still have to constitute an expert committee to examine and determine the claim of the VGs for enhancement of their financial benefits. 22. The learned Senior counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Communication dated 30.05.2016 (Annexure-F) wherein, a proposal was submitted by the State Government to the Joint Secretary, Northeast Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India for enhancing of the monthly honorarium of the VGs from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 5,000/-. He submits that this clearly shows that the State Government is fully aware about the necessity to increase the monthly honorarium of the VGs. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the VGs are trained and that is why they are issued arms and ammunition by the State Government. 1,500/- to Rs. 5,000/-. He submits that this clearly shows that the State Government is fully aware about the necessity to increase the monthly honorarium of the VGs. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the VGs are trained and that is why they are issued arms and ammunition by the State Government. He further submits that the contention of the writ petitioners about the nature and duties of the VGs, the issuance of rifles and ammunitions and the manner in which they have served the nation ever since its inception in the year 1957 is clearly admitted and not denied by the State appellants in their affidavit-in-opposition. As it is a well settled law that averments which are not controverted or denied are to be considered as accepted and therefore, the claim of the writ petitioners have only been accepted by the State respondents. 23. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the statements of the State respondents at paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of their affidavit-in-opposition and also at paragraph No. 3 (a) & (b) of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 7 only speaks volume about the importance and high responsibility discharged by the VGs. Therefore, when the Home Guard personnel are basically to assist in the maintenance of internal security, law and order duties, protection to important installation of State and Central establishments, the VGs cannot be given monthly honorariums and allowances lesser than them. He submits that the principle of equal pay for equal work is very much attracted under the facts and circumstances. As such, he submits that the impugned judgment & order of the learned Single Judge requires no interference and that the writ appeal should be dismissed. 24. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and we have perused the materials available on record. 25. From the facts narrated herein above and also the submissions made by the rival parties, the issue to be decided is as to whether the monthly honorarium and the allowances paid to VGs requires enhancement as claimed in view of the nature of duties, functions and responsibilities performed by them. Further, having regard to the similarity of their functions and duties and responsibilities with that of the Home Guards in the State, whether they should be also given similar and equal monetary benefits. Further, having regard to the similarity of their functions and duties and responsibilities with that of the Home Guards in the State, whether they should be also given similar and equal monetary benefits. From the materials available on record, it may be noticed that the VGs was established in the State in the year 1957 and as per the extract from the Silver Jubilee Souvenir as reproduced by the State appellants in their affidavit-in-opposition, VGs is a voluntary force and they were paid a monthly remuneration of Rs. 70/-, annual clothing allowance of Rs. 60/- and Rs. 5/- per day as ration money when they operate outside their village. Subsequently, the monthly honorarium and the annual allowance apparently was enhanced to be Rs. 1,500/- per month, ration allowance to Rs. 25/- per day while on duty and yearly clothing allowance to Rs. 500/-. Further, on promotion, they are given NCOs rank allowance of Rs. 50/- rank-wise. Subsequently, the monthly honorariums of the VGs have been enhanced from Rs. 1,500/- per month to Rs. 3,000/- per month w.e.f., 01.04.2018. It is further noticed that the State Government in the Home Department, Police 'B' Branch vide Communication dated 30.05.2016 had written to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Northeast Division, Govt. of India proposing the enhancement/revision of wages/increase in honorarium of VGs from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month by incorporating a justification that the duties performed by the VGs warrants revision/enhancement. Likewise, the rival parties both in the writ proceeding as well as in this Intra-court appeal have argued in great detail about nature and duties of the VGs and the comparison thereof with the Home Guards in the State. 26. In the case of State of Punjab and Anr. vs. Surjit Singh & Ors. (supra), The Apex Court observed that in the 1970s and the 1980s, the Supreme Court liberally applied the principle of equal pay for equal work without insisting clear pleadings or proof that the persons similarly situated with others are equal in all respects. A Division Bench Judgment of the Apex Court itself in S.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 279 was referred wherein, it was held that Article 39(d) in order to be applied must satisfy the test that the incumbents are performing equal and identical work as discharged by employees against whom the equal pay is claimed. A Division Bench Judgment of the Apex Court itself in S.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 279 was referred wherein, it was held that Article 39(d) in order to be applied must satisfy the test that the incumbents are performing equal and identical work as discharged by employees against whom the equal pay is claimed. It was held that persons who claimed parity must satisfy the Court that the conditions are identical and equal and same duties are being discharged by them. In a separate but concurrent judgment Justice Markandey Katju opined that fixation of pay scale is a delicate mechanism which requires various considerations including financial capacity, responsibility, educational qualification, mode of appointment etc and it has a cascading effect. Hence, in subsequent decision of the Apex Court, the principle of equal pay or equal work has been considerable watered down, and it has hardly ever been applied by the Court in recent years. It was further opined that fixation of pay scales by Courts by applying the principle of equal pay of equal works upsets the high Constitutional principle of separation of powers between the 3 (three) organs of the State. The Apex Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups and there too, the matter should be sent for examination by an expert committee appointed by the Government instead of the Court itself granting higher pay. In conclusion, the Apex Court held that the interest of justice would be subserved if the State is directed to examine the case of the respondents by appointing an expert committee as to whether the principles of law laid down in the judgment as to whether the respondents satisfied the factors for invocation of the decision in State of Haryana vs. Charanjit Singh, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 321 in its entirety including the question of appointment in terms of the recruitment rules have been followed. 27. A similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. (supra) where it was held that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work as enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. 27. A similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. (supra) where it was held that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work as enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. The Constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. Court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need etc. In other words, the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesome/wholesale identity between the holders of two posts. The burden of establishing right and parity in employment is only on the person claiming such right. In Grah Rakshak Home Guards Welfare Association (supra), the questions involved in the appeals before the Apex Court was whether Home Guards of the State of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and MCT of Delhi are regular appointees in the cadre/services of Home Guards and if not, whether they are entitled for regularization of their services? Answering the question against the appellants, the Apex Court held that it was not a case of the State Government that enrolment/appointments of the Home Guards were backdoor engagement and illegal made in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is not applicable in the case of the appellant/Home Guards. Admittedly, there is no concept of wages. The volunteers are paid duty allowance and other allowances to which they are entitled. There was nothing on the record to suggest that they performed duties throughout the year. On the other hand, it was 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 throughout the year can neither be equated with that of the police personnel. 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 throughout the year can neither be equated with that of the police personnel. As such, the Apex Court held that no relief can be granted to the appellants either for regularization of service or for grant of regular appointments. In view of such conclusion of the Apex Court, the said decision in our considered view cannot be applied to the instant case. 28. The Apex Court in the case of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors., (supra) examined various authorities relating to parity in pay/pay scale and including the principles of equal pay for equal work and ultimately held that the principle of equal pay and equal works expounded by the Apex Court through various decisions is binding on all Courts in India. The same is applicable to temporary employees performing the same duties and responsibilities as regular employees. It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour more so in a welfare State, any act of paying less wages as compared to other similarly situated, constitute acts of exploitation or enslavement emerging out of domineering possession of the State. As such, temporary employees possessing requisite qualifications and appointed against posts which were also available in regular cadre, performing similar duties and responsibilities has been discharged by regular employees holding same/corresponding posts would be entitled to pay wages at par with the minimum pay scale of regular employees holding the same post in view of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court upon examining various decisions rendered by the Court observed that apparently, in all matters where the Supreme Court did not extend the benefit of equal pay for equal work to temporary employees, it was because the employees could not establish that they were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by regular employees holding corresponding posts. Therefore, to claims parity of pay on the principles of equal pay for equal work, the onus of proof lies upon the persons who claimed parity. Therefore, to claims parity of pay on the principles of equal pay for equal work, the onus of proof lies upon the persons who claimed parity. Besides the onus of establishing the similarity of the duties and responsibilities performed by two sets of employees under comparison, the same has to be determined by a panel of experts who possess the expertise and materials for examining the claim for parity of pay. Therefore, it would be only appropriate if the exercise of finding out the similarity of duties and responsibilities of duties performed by the VGs can be carried out by a panel of experts. As already noticed, the appellants are also agreeable to the fact that the matter needs to be examined by an expert committee. 29. In that view of the matter, we direct the State Government to constitute an expert committee to examine and determine the payment/entitlement of financial benefits of Village Guards in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Northeast Division, Govt. of India, New Delhi. The expert committee should include representatives from the Home Department, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Finance Department, at least 2 (two) members from the petitioner association, the representatives of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Northeast Division amongst others. The committee should be chaired by an Officer/Official who is not below the rank of Addl. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland. The committee should be constituted as directed herein above within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the committee should complete the process of examining the matter of enhancement of the honorarium and other allowances of the VGs an expeditiously as possible and not later than within a period of 4 (four) months from the date it is constituted. While considering the matter of enhancement of honorarium and other allowances as directed herein above, the committee shall take into consideration the observation and direction given by the Apex Court at paragraph 39 in the case of Grah Rakshak Home Guard Welfare Association (supra). The recommendation made by the Committee shall then be forwarded to the State Government in the Home Department and also to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Northeast Division for approval and further necessary action. 30. The impugned Judgment & Order dated 09.11.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 33(K)/2017 is hereby set aside. The recommendation made by the Committee shall then be forwarded to the State Government in the Home Department and also to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Northeast Division for approval and further necessary action. 30. The impugned Judgment & Order dated 09.11.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 33(K)/2017 is hereby set aside. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.