Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
3 judgments · newest first · showing 1–3
The petitioners, appointed as Home Guards under the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947, sought equal treatment with State Police officers, including regular pay, service benefits, and permanent status, via a writ under Article 226. The State argued that Home Guards are a voluntary, emergency‑only force …
The petitioners, appointed as Home Guards under the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947, sought equal treatment with State Police officers, including regular pay, service benefits, and permanent status, via a writ under Article 226. The State argued that Home Guards are a voluntary, emergency‑only force …
The respondents, appointed as Home Guard Commandants under the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947, were disengaged after the authorities found they had violated the political‑neutrality undertaking required by the Notification dated 17‑April‑1993. The State of Gujarat contended that the disengagement …
