GONDALIYA JAGDISHKUMAR ANANDRAMversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

 C/SCA/17518/2019                                 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




                                                Reserved On   : 12/02/2026
                                                Pronounced On : 19/02/2026

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17518 of 2019
                                 With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23127 of 2019
                                 With
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 384 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================

           Approved for Reporting                 Yes           No
                                                   ✓
==========================================================
                    MUKESH ARSIBHAL KARMUR & ORS.
                                Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance in SCA/17518/2019:
MR AKSHAT KHARE(5912) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,3
2,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,50,51,52,53,54,5
5,56,57,58,59,6,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,7,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,8
,9
MRS SUMAN KHARE(2226) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,3
2,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,50,51,52,53,54,5
5,56,57,58,59,6,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,7,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,8
,9
MS. DHRUTI PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
Appearance in SCA/23127/2019:
MR AKSHAT KHARE(5912) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MRS SUMAN KHARE(2226) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
PETITION/APPEAL WITHDRAWN/DISMISSED for the Petitioner(s) No. 2,3
MS. DHRUTI PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 – STATE
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
Appearance in SCA/384/2020:
MR AKSHAT KHARE(5912) for the Petitioner(s) No. 10,11
MRS SUMAN KHARE(2226) for the Petitioner(s) No. 10,11
MS. FORUM SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 – STATE
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT



                                 Page 1 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                     CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




                           COMMON CAV JUDGMENT


1.     Rule         returnable     forthwith.        Learned        AGPs        and

learned advocate for the respondents waive service of

rule on behalf of respective respondents. With consent of

the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.



2.     Heard Mr. Akshat Khare, learned advocate for the

petitioner/s,        and   Ms.     Forum           Shah   and      Ms.      Dhruti

Pandya,        learned      AGPs      for      the    respondent-State             in

respective petitions and Mr. Shushil R. Shukla, learned

advocate for the respondent No.3-Union of India in SCA

No. 17518 of 2019.



3.     Since        this   batch     of     captioned       petitions        raises

common issues and seek common reliefs, they are being

decided by way of this common judgment. To understand

and answer the issue germane in the present matters, I

would like to take the facts and prayers from Special

Civil Application No. 23127 of 2009, treating it as the

lead matter.


4.     The present writ petition is filed under Article 226




                                    Page 2 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                   CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking following

reliefs:

       “A) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
       or any other writ appropriate writ, order or direction directing
       the respondent authorities to treat the members of the Home
       Guards at par with equal grade of State Police Force.

       B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
       any other writ appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
       respondent to grant service benefits like pay fixation, leave
       overtime, medical allowances, travelling allowances, retiral
       benefits like provident fund like pension, gratuity, etc. to the
       petitioners along with arrears by considering their service from
       the date of appointment as Home Guard.

       C) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
       any other writ appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
       respondent authorities to declare the petitioners as permanent
       and fulltime member of Home Guard force and to treat them at
       par with the State Police Force in terms of service condition &
       benefits.

       D) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
       any other writ appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
       respondents authorities to verify the numbers of Home Guard in
       the State by removing the members of Home Guards who have
       already joined other employment.

       E) During the pendency of the present petition, your lordships
       may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from
       terminating the service of the petitioners or changing the service
       conditions of the petitioners in terms of order under Section 33C
       of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

       F) During the pendency of the present petition, your lordships
       may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to place on
       record the entire details regarding vacancies in the Police Force
       against the total sanctioned strength from 2002 to 2019 and also
       place on record the data showing the work taken from the Home
       Guards for the last 5 years due to short fall in the police force.



                                   Page 3 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                        CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




       G) Your Lordship may please to pass such order and further
       directions as the nature of the case may require;”


5.     BRIEF FACTS:

5.1    All     the   petitioners       have       been        appointed      by     the

respondent-authority         under       Section          3    of     the    Bombay

Home Guards Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “ the

Act,    1947”).      Prior   to    their      appointments,             they      were

subjected to physical tests and written tests, and as they
have      cleared     the    same,      accordingly,            respondent         has

appointed them as Home Guards. The petitioners have

also undergone training for imparting their duties as

members of Home Guard.



5.2    As      per   scheme       of    the       Act,        1947,    to     provide
voluntary organization for use in emergencies and for

other purposes in the State of Gujarat, services of Home

Guards availed. The respondent-State used to pay per

day fixed allowance of Rs.304/- to Home Guards and the

same is revised from time to time. Nonetheless, the

Home Guard would not receive any monthly salary like

police personnel of State.



5.3    The petitioners are serving as Home Guards since



                                   Page 4 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                      CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




long and felt that considering the nature of their duties

and as working almost for 27 days in a month, entitled

to receive the regular pay and other service benefits,

which      otherwise      available    to        the   State      Police      Force.

Hence, preferred this petitions.



6.     SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER/S:

6.1    Mr. Khare, learned advocate for the petitioner/s,

would submit that as per the scheme of the Act, 1947,

and the nature of duties discharged by the petitioners as

Home Guards, they are entitled to receive similar pay

and    other        benefits   given   by        respondent       to    its    State

Police Force. It is submitted that as per Section 2 of the

Act, 1947, every Home Guard requires to discharge their

duties like protection of person, security of property,

public safety and maintenance of essential services, etc.



6.2    Mr. Khare, learned advocate, would further submit

that apart from the aforesaid duties, Home Guards are

required to guard the public buildings, patrolling for the

purpose of prevention of crime, provide assistance to the

ordinary police force. They are also subjected to transport
from one area to another. All the aforesaid works are



                                  Page 5 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                        CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




similar to the work discharged by State Police Force, but

paid     only       fixed    daily       allowance       thereof,      instead        of

monthly pay.



6.3    Mr. Khare, learned advocate, would further submit

that all Home Guards are available for their services

throughout the year, and considering the fact that nature

of their services and requirements is perennial in nature,

such Home Guards are required to be given equal pay

for equal work.



6.4    Mr. Khare, learned advocate, would submit that the

issue germane to the matter is squarely covered by the

decision of this Court in the case of Gajaji Gopaji Jadeja

Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2005) 2 GLR 1142. It
is    submitted       that    in     a    case      of   Border      Wing       Home

Guards, this Court has accepted their plea to grant all

regular pay and other service benefits as available to the

State Police Force. It is further submitted that such

decision was even not disturbed by the Division Bench of

this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed

the appeal filed by the State.




                                     Page 6 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                     CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




6.5            Making           the     above        submissions,         learned

advocate for the petitioners would request this Court to

allow the present writ petition.



6.6    To buttress his arguments, he would rely on the

following judgments:

       (i) State of W.B. And Others Vs. Pantha Chatterjee And
       Others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 469.

       (ii)    Gajaji Gopaji Jadeja (supra).

       (iii) State of Gujarat Vs. Gajaji Gopaji Jadeja rendered in
       Letters Patent Appeal No. 712 of 2005 dated 06.04.2011.

       (iv) State of Gujarat Vs. Gajaji Gopaji Jadeja rendered in Civil
       Appeal No.8815 of 2017.


7.     SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

7.1    Per contra, Ms. Pandya and Ms. Shah, learned AGP
appearing           for   the    respondent-State,        have       vehemently

opposed the prayers of the petitioners contending, inter

alia, that the issue germane in the matter is not covered
by the cited decisions. It is submitted that appointment

of Home Guard cannot be equated with regular State

Police Force, and as such, Home Guards are not entitled

to receive regular pay as claimed.




                                      Page 7 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                  CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




7.2    Learned AGP would further submit that nature of

the duties and works of Home Guards and State Police

Force     are       not   equal   and    similar    as     claimed.       It    is

submitted that as per object of the Act, 1947, to provide

voluntary organization for use in emergencies and for

other purposes in the State, the appointment of Home

Guards undertaken. It is submitted that unlike State

Police Force, no power of investigation, arrest and to

receive complaint, etc., is available with Home Guards.



7.3    Learned AGP would further submit that facts of the

case of Gajaji Gopaji Jadeja (supra), are not so similar

to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as in the

cited case, the petitioner concerned was appointed as

Border Wing Home Guard, whose services are required

24x7 to protect the border of the country. The selection

criteria of Border Wing Home Guards are different from

the ordinary Home Guards like petitioners. It is further

submitted that as per rules of recruitment of Border

Wing       Home       Guards,     it    requires     that      the     persons

concerned recruited as Border Wing Home Guard are

found to be residing within 50 kilometers of concerned
border, whereas there is no such area requirement for



                                  Page 8 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                              CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




recruitment of ordinary Home Guard under the Act, 1947

and the rules framed thereunder. It is also submitted

that     unlike Border Wing Home Guards, ordinary Home

Guards         can   pursue   their      own     vocation,        as      the

requirements of Border Wing Home Guards are for 365

days.



7.4     Learned AGP would further submit that principle of

equal pay for equal work would not be applicable to the

present case, inasmuch as Home Guards are not in a

position to show that all the duties discharged by them

are similar as discharged by any State Police Force. It is

submitted that as per settled position of law, unless it is

established on record that nature of duties so discharged

by petitioner is similar to other employee, no benefits of

similar pay of such employee can be claimed by the

petitioners.



7.5     Learned AGP would further submit that as such,

the issue germane to the matter is settled down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in its following decisions, wherein it

has been categorically held that requirement of Home
Guard is in the necessity and as such, their services are



                              Page 9 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                               CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




not    perennial    in   nature,      thereby     they      cannot       seek

regularization of their engagement.



7.6    Making the above submissions, learned AGP would

request this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.



7.7    To buttress her arguments, learned AGP would rely

upon the following judgments:


       (i)   Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association Vs.
       State of Himachal Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6
       SCC 247.

       (ii)  State of Manipur And Another vs Ksh. Moirangninthou
       Singh reported in (2007) 10 SCC 544.

       (iii) State Of Uttarakhand And Others Vs. Ram Bahadur
       Maurya And Another rendered in Special Appeal No. 489 of
       2017 dated 17.04.2018 reported in 2018 Lawsuit(Utt) 161.



8.     Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent

No.3-Union of India appeared in SCA No. 17518 of 2019,

would submit that as such, essential reliefs, sought by

the petitioners, are against the respondent-State; yet, Mr.

Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent No.3-Union

of India would adopt the arguments put forth by learned

AGP appearing for the respondent-State.



                               Page 10 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                        CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




9.      No other and further submissions have been made

by the learned advocates for the respective parties.



ANALYSIS:

10.     Having      heard    the        learned          advocates         for      the

respective parties and after perusal of their pleadings

and documents, it appears that all the petitioners are

appointed as Home Guards by respondent as per Act,

1947. As per nature of appointment and object of the

Act,1947,       their   services     are     to     be     taken      in    case      of

emergency. The Home Guards are paid daily allowance.

There is no prerequisite to assign everyday duty to all

Home Guards, but as and when the requirement arises

or in emergency, they are called and deputed to various

places across the State by the Commandant.



10.1           The nature of duty and functions mentioned in

Section 2 of the Act, 1947 would be to the protection of

persons, security of property, public safety, maintenance

of essential services, etc. It is true that a member of

Home Guard when called out under Section 4 of the Act,
1947,      shall    have    the      same          powers,       privileges        and



                                   Page 11 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                   CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




protection as an officer of police appointed under any Act

for the time being in force. Even no prosecution shall be

instituted against a member of Home Guard in respect

of anything done by him in discharge of his function,

except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner of

Police or District Magistrate, as the case may be. At the

same time Section 6 of the Act, 1947, it is clear that

member of the Home Guard would become in aid of

police force, thereby under control of officers of police

force. However, it does not mean that the nature of

duties and functions of Home Guards is akin to those of

the State Police Force. The object of Act, 1947 itself

suggests that Home Guards are utilized as a voluntary

organization for emergency purposes; consequently, their

services cannot be characterized as being perennial in

nature.



11.    To     test   the   arguments           of   Mr.    Khare,       learned

advocate for the petitioners, I would like to reproduce

the relevant sections of the Act, 1947 and Gujarat Police

Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act, 1951”) to

demonstrate the distinction between the duties discharged
by the Home Guards and the State Police Force.



                               Page 12 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                    CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




11.1           The relevant provisions of Sections 2, 4 to 7 of

the Act, 1947 are as follows:


       “2. (1) The [ State ] Government shall constitute for each of the
       areas specified in sub-section (3) of section 1 and for each of the
       areas notified under the said sub-section (3) 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, the public safety and the
       maintenance of essential Services as may be assigned to them in
       accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made
       thereunder.

       (1A) In respect of the Saurashtra area and the Vidarbha region,
       the Home Guards raised or constituted, immediately before the
       commencement of the Bombay Home Guards (Extension and
       Amendment) Act, 1958, shall be deemed to be constituted under
       sub-section (1) ].

       (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 the Home Guards in whom shall vest the general
       supervision and control of the Home Guards throughout the
       State of Gujarat.

       4. (1) The Commandant may at any time call out a member of
       the Home Guards for training or to discharge any of the
       functions or duties assigned to the Home Guards in accordance
       with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.

       (2) The Commandant General may in an emergency call out a
       member of the Home Guards for training or to discharge any of
       the said functions or duties in any part of the State of Gujarat.

       5. (1) 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 Act for the time


                                   Page 13 of 25
C/SCA/17518/2019                                   CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




      being in force.

      (2) 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 this functions or duties as such
      member except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner
      of Police in any area for which a Commissioner of Police has
      been appointed and of the District Magistrate, elsewhere.

      6. The members of the Home Guards when called out under
      section 4 in aid of the police force shall be under the control of
      the officers of the police force in such manner and to such extent
      as may be prescribed by rules' made under section 8.

      6A. (1) Every person who for any reason ceases to be a member
      of the Home Guards shall forth with deliver upto the
      Commandant or to such person and at such place as the
      Commandant may direct, his certificate of appointment or of
      office and the arms, accoutrements, clothing and other
      necessaries which have been furnished to him as such member.

      (2) Any Magistrate, and for special reasons which shall be
      recorded in writing at the time, any police officer not below the
      rank of a Deputy Commissioner for Police in any area for which
      a Commissioner of Police has been appointed and Assistant or
      Deputy Superintendent of Police elsewhere, may issue a warrant
      to search for and seize, wherever they may be found, any
      certificate, arms, accoutrements, clothing or other necessaries
      not so delivered up. Every warrant so issued shall be executed
      in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal
      Procedure, 1898, by a police officer of if the Magistrate or the
      police officer issuing the warrant so directs by any other person.

      (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any
      article which under the orders of the Commandant General has
      become the property of the person to whom the same was
      furnished.

      6B. (1) The Commandant shall have the authority to suspend,
      reduce or dismiss or fine, to an amount not exceeding fifty
      rupees, any member of the Home Guards, under his control, if
      such member, without reasonable cause, on being called out
      under section 4 neglects or refuses to obey such order or to
      discharge his functions and duties as a member of Home Guards


                                  Page 14 of 25
C/SCA/17518/2019                                   CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




      or to obey any lawful order or direction given to him for the
      performance of his functions and duties or is guilty of any
      breach of discipline or misconduct. The Commandant shall also
      have the authority to dismiss any member of the Home Guards
      on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a
      criminal charge. The Commandant General shall have the like
      authority in respect of any member of the Home Guards
      appointed to a post under his immediate control.

      (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the
      Commandant shall have the authority to discharge any member
      of the Home Guards at any time subject to such conditions as
      may be prescribed if, in the opinion of the Commandant, the
      services of such members are no longer required. The
      Commandant General shall have the like authority in respect of
      any member of the Home Guards appointed to a post under his
      immediate control.

      (2) When the Commandant General or the Commandant passes
      an order for suspending, reducing, dismissing or fining any
      member of the Home Guards under sub-section (1), he shall
      record such order or cause the same to be recorded, together
      with the reasons therefore and a note of the inquiry made, in
      writing, and no such order shall be passed by the Commandant
      General or the Commandant unless the person concerned is
      given an opportunity to be heard in his defence.

      (3) Any member of the Home Guards aggrieved by an order of
      the Commandant may appeal against such order to the
      Commandant General and any such member aggrieved by an
      order of the Commandant General may appeal against such
      order to the State Government, within thirty days of the date on
      which he was served with notice of such order. The
      Commandant General or the State Government, as the case may
      be, may pass such order as he or it thinks fit.

      (4) The Commandant General or the State Government may at
      any time call for and examine the record of any order passed by
      the Commandant or Commandant General, respectively, under
      sub-section (1) or (1A) for the purpose of satisfying himself or
      itself as to the legality or propriety of such order passed by the
      Commandant or the Commandant General, as the case may be,
      and may pass such order with reference thereto as he or it
      thinks fit.


                                  Page 15 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                    CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




       (5) Every order if no appeal is made therefrom as hereinbefore
       provided and every order passed in appeal or revision under
       this section shall be final.

       (6) Any fine imposed under this section may be recovered in the
       manner provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for
       the recovery of fines imposed by a Court as if such fine were
       imposed by a Court.

       (7) Any punishment inflicted on a member of the Home Guards
       under this section shall be in addition to the penalty to which
       such member is liable under section 7 or any other law for the
       time being in force.

       7.(1) If any member of the Home Guards, on being called out
       under section 4, without reasonable excuse, neglects or refuses
       to obey such order, or to discharge his functions as a member of
       the Home Guards, or to obey any lawful order or direction
       given to him for the performance of his duties, he shall, on
       conviction, be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term
       which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend
       to two hundred and fifty rupees or with both.

       (1A) If any member of the Home Guards wilfully neglects or
       refuse to deliver up his certificate of appointment or of office or
       any other article, in accordance with the provisions of sub-
       ection (1) of section 6A, he shall, on conviction, be punished
       with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or
       with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees or with both.

       (2) No proceedings shall be instituted under sub-section (1) or
       (1A) without the previous sanction of the Commandant.

       (3) A police officer may arrest without warrant any person who
       commits an offence punishable under sub-section (1) or (1A).”

11.2           The relevant provisions of Sections 2(4), 28, 64,

66 to 68, 71 to 73 of the Act, 1951 are as follows:

       “2 …



                                   Page 16 of 25
C/SCA/17518/2019                                    CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




      (4) "constable" means a police officer of the lowest grade and
      includes a Lok Rakshak;

      28.     (1) Every Police officer not on leave or under suspension
      shall for all purposes of this Act be deemed to be always on duty,
      and any Police officer or any number or body of Police officers
      allocated for duty in one part of the State may, if the State
      Govermnent or the Inspector General so directs, at any time, be
      employed on Police duty in any other part of the State for so long
      as the services of the same may be there required.

      (2) Timely intimation shall, except in cases of extreme urgency,
      be given to the District Magistrate by the Inspector General of
      any proposed transfer under this section, and except, where
      secrecy is necessary the reasons for the transfer shall be
      explained; whereupon the officers aforesaid and their
      subordinate shall give all reasonable furtherance to such
      transfer.

      64. It shall be the duty of every Police officer-
      (a) promptly to serve every summons and obey and execute every
      wanant or other order lawfully issued to him competent
      authority, and to endeavour by all lawful means to give effect to
      the lawful commands of his superior:

      (b) to the best of his ability to obtain intelligence concerning the
      commission of congnizable offences or designs commit such
      offences, and to lay such information and to take such other
      steps, consistant with law and with the orders of his superiors as
      shall be best calculated to bring offenders to justice or to prevent
      the commission of cognizable and within his view of non-
      ognizable offences;

      (c) to prevent to the best of his ability the commission of public
      nuisances;

      (d) to apprehend without umeasonable delay all persons whom
      he is legally authorised to apprehend and for whose
      apprehension there is sufficient reason;

      (e) to aid another Police officer when called on by him or in case
      of need in the discharge of his duty, in such ways as would be
      lawful and reasonable on the part of the officer aided;



                                  Page 17 of 25
C/SCA/17518/2019                                     CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




      (f) to discharge such duties as are imposed upon him by any law
      for the time being in force.

      66. It shall be the duty of every Police Officer-
      (a) to afford every assistance within his power to disabled or
      helpless persons in the streets, and to take charge of intoxicated
      persons and of lunatics at large who appear dangerous or
      incapable of taking care of themselves;

      (b) to take prompt measures to procure necessary help for any
      person under arrest or in custody, who is wounded or sick and
      whilst guarding or conducting any such person, to have due
      regard to his condition;

      (c) to arrange for the proper sustenance and shelter of every
      person who is under arrest or in custody;

      (d) in conducting searches, to refrain from needless rudeness and
      the causing of unnecessary annoyance;

      (e) in dealing with women and children to act with strict regard
      to decency and with reasonable gentleness;

      (f) to use his best endeavours to prevent any loss or damage by
      fire;

      (g) to use his best endeavours to avert any accident or danger to
      the public.

      67.    It shall be the duty of a Police Officer-
      (a) to regulate and control the traffic in the streets, to prevent
      obstructions therein and to the best of his ability to prevent the
      infraction of any rule or order made under this Act or any other
      law in force for observance by the public in or near the streets;

       (b) to keep order in the streets and at and within public bathing,
      washing and landing places fairs, temples, and all other places
      of public resort and in the neighbourhood of places of public
      worship during the time of public worship;

      (c) to regulate resort to public bathing, washing and landing
      places, to prevent overcrowdig thereat and in public ferry-boats
      and to the best of his ability, to prevent the infraction of any rule
      or order lawfully made for observance by the public any such


                                   Page 18 of 25
C/SCA/17518/2019                                    CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




      place or on any such boat.

      68. All persons shall be bounded to conform to the reasonable
      directions a Police officer given in fulfilment of any of his duties
      under this Act.

      71. It shall be the duty of the Police to see that every regulation
      and direction made by any authority under sections 43, 55, 56,
      57 or 63AA is duly obeyed to warn persons who from ignorance
      fail to obey the same and to arrest any person who wilully
      disobeys the same.

      72. Any Police officer may, without any order from a Magistrate
      and without
      (1) any person who has been concerned in an offence
      punishable under section 121 or against whom a reasonable
      complaint has been made or credible information has been
      received or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been
      concerned in such offence;

      (2) any person who contravences a rule or order under clause
      (x) of subsection (1) of section 33 or an order or an order or
      notification under section 36, 3 7, 56 57 or 63AA;

      (2A) any person who contravences any order made under sub-
      section (I) of section 63 A;]

      (3) any person who commits an offence punishable under
      section 122 or section 136.

      73. Any Police officer may, without an order from a Magistrate
      and without a warrant, arrest any person committing in his
      presence any offence punishable under section 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6 or
      6C of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 or of that
      Act as in force in the Saurashtra area of the State of Gujarat.

      73A. Section 6B of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
      1890, as in force in the Bombay area of the State of Gujarat
      (hereinafter in this section and in section 74, 75 and 77 referred
      to as the said Act) is, for the purposes of sections 74 to 77 (both
      inclusive) hereby extended to, and shall be in force in, the
      remaining areas of the State of Gujarat he and in consequence
      thereof, any provisions corresponding thereto or dealing with
      the like matter, force in any such areas of the State shall be


                                   Page 19 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                         CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




        deemed to have been substituted by the aforesaid provisions of
        the said Act.”

11.3            The plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of

the aforesaid Acts would clearly indicate that the nature

of duties and functions of the Home Guards and the

Police Officers of the State are neither similar nor equal.

Since     the        nature    of   duties      and       work     of    the     Home

Guards and the Police Personnel of State are not equal,
principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied,

as argued by Mr. Khare, learned advocate for petitioners.



12.     It is true that in a case of Gajaji Gopaji Jadeja

(supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted
benefits of regular pay and other service and retiral

benefits as admissible and payable to State Government
servants to Border Wing Home Guards. The facts of that

case are not so similar to the facts of present case,

inasmuch            as   the   appointment           of   Border        Wing     Home

Guard is different from appointment of ordinary Home

Guard,       which        is   noticeable       from      the      pleadings        and

arguments canvassed before this Court in that matter.



12.1            The decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of    Pantha Chatterjee (supra), followed by Co-ordinate


                                     Page 20 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                            CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




Bench of this Court while accepting the plea of Border

Wing Guards and upon which heavy reliance placed by

Mr. Khare, learned advocate for the petitioners, is also

not helpful to the case of the petitioners, inasmuch as

the nature of the duties and continuous service required

to be discharged by Border Wing Home Guards unlike

the ordinary Home Guards. The present petitioners are

appointed as ordinary Home Guards, whereby as per

object     and       scheme        of     the      Act,     1947,       as    and     when

contingency arises, a competent authority would call upon

them to discharge their duties and accordingly, pay their

daily allowances as per fixed rate. Thus, petitioners can

very     well       pursue        their     vocation        in     free      time    unlike

Border       Wing       Home            Guards            whose     services        require

continuously;         accordingly,            it     treated       as     perennial       in

nature.      Further,        it    appears that              the    criteria        set   for

recruiting Border Wing Home Guards are different from

the ordinary Home Guards, which is also referred by Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision.



13.    At this stage, it is apt to refer the decision of

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Grah Rakshak, Home
Guards        Welfare         Association             (supra) ,      wherein         in       a



                                          Page 21 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                    CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




somewhat similar claim raised by the ordinary Home

Guards, to give relief of regularization, was turned down,

wherein held thus:

       “30. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
       had taken plea that the appellants have been working as Home
       Guards for period ranging from 10 to 30 years and therefore in
       view of the decision in State of W.B. v. Pantha Chatterjee [State
       of W.B. v. Pantha Chatterjee, (2003) 6 SCC 469 : 2003 SCC
       (L&S) 894] they are also entitled for regularisation of their
       services. However, such contention has been opposed by the
       learned counsel for the State(s). They relied upon another
       decision of this Court in State of Manipur v. Moirangninthou
       Singh [(2007) 10 SCC 544 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 35] . In the
       said case, the members of the Manipur Home Guards filed
       different writ petitions in the Gauhati High Court inter alia
       praying that their services be regularised in the Home Guards
       and that they be given regular pay scales. In the said case, the
       Court noticed that Home Guards have been constituted as a
       voluntary organisation for service in emergencies. Their initial
       appointment was for three years after which it is at the discretion
       of the Commandant, subject to approval of the Commandant
       General to reappoint a member of the Home Guards. The Court
       further noticed that there was an age-limit of 50 years. In the
       said case, the Court held : (SCC p. 546, para 7)

               “7. We are of the opinion that in view of the Constitution
               Bench judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka v.
               Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)(2006) 4
               SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] this Court cannot direct
               regularisation in service. Since the court has no power to
               direct regularisation, it also follows that it has no power
               to direct grant of benefits payable to the regular
               employees.”

       The Court further held : (Moirangninthou Singh case [(2007)
       10 SCC 544 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 35] , SCC p. 547, para 11)

               “11. A perusal of the provisions of the Home Guards Act
               and the Rules show that the Home Guards was meant to
               be a reserve force which was to be utilised in
               emergencies, but it was not a service like the police,

                                   Page 22 of 25
C/SCA/17518/2019                                    CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




              paramilitary 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. (NCT of Delhi) [2002 SCC OnLine Del 483 :
              (2002) 98 DLT 624] .”

      34. In the form filled up by the Home Guards volunteers of each
      State, the Home Guards have specifically mentioned that they
      undertake to serve as a member of the Home Guards at any time
      and place in India if they are called out for training or duty. This
      is evident from Form I of the Himachal Pradesh Home Guards
      Act, 1968 which shows that they are entitled for temporary
      allowance and in case of injury sustained or disability occurred
      during the duty they are entitled for disability pension.

      37. It is not the case of the State Government that
      enrolment/appointments of the Home Guards were back door
      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) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)(2006) 4 SCC 1 :
      2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , is not applicable in the case of the
      appellant 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 throughout 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 throughout the year can neither be equated with that of
      the police personnel.

      39. In view of the discussion made above, no relief can be
      granted to the appellants either for regularisation of services or
      for grant of regular appointments, hence no interference is called
      for against the judgments [Grah Rakshak Home Guards
      Welfare v. State, WP (C) No. 645 of 2005, order dated 26-5-2008
      (HP); Hardev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2013 SCC OnLine P&H
      2918; Daya Singh v. State of Punjab, WP (C) No. 7365 of 2013,
      order dated 8-4-2013 (P&H); Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab,
      WP (C) No. 12859 of 2013, order dated 31-5-2013
      (P&H); Anant Prasad v. Union of India, 2013 SCC OnLine Del


                                  Page 23 of 25
 C/SCA/17518/2019                                     CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




       314; Surender Kumar v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), WP (C) No. 3007
       of 2010, order dated 20-5-2013 (Del)] 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 the
       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.”
                                                        (emphasis supplied)

14.    Thus,        in    view      of     the      aforesaid        facts      and

circumstances and keeping in mind the ratio of the

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Ksh.

Moirangninthou Singh (supra) and Grah Rakshak, Home
Guards Welfare Association (supra) , I am of the view
that the petitioners - Home Guards are not entitled to

the    claim        the   regular        pay    and    other      service       and

retirement benefits as claimed in these petitions.



CONCLUSION:

15.           In view of the foregoing reasons, it is held that

duties     and      functions    of      the    Home     Guards        appointed

pursuant to the Act, 1947 are not equivalent to those

performed by the police officers under the Act, 1951.

Accordingly, the petitioners have failed to make out a

case for equal pay for equal work.


                                    Page 24 of 25
  C/SCA/17518/2019                                                 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2026




16.     Before parting with, as observed by Hon’ble Apex

Court        in      the     case      of     Grah Rakshak, Home Guards
Welfare Association (supra), I am also of the view that
the rate of daily duty allowance paid to the Home

Guards         if    pay       for     30     days        (a    month)          is    less      than

minimum of the pay to which the police personnel of the

State are entitled to, then the State should consider such

aspect, and appropriate decision in that respect may be

taken, thereby such daily duty allowance rate may be

revised, so the Home Guards may get at least the

appropriate daily duty allowances as and when called for

duty, which may be par with minimum of the pay (per

day) received by the police personnel of the State.



17.     In view of the foregoing conclusion, I do not find

any merit in the present captioned petitions, which are

required to be dismissed and, thus, are hereby dismissed,

albeit the aforesaid aspect may be considered by the

State. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.



                                                                        (MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/02/2026 12:20:15




                                             Page 25 of 25