Supreme Court of India
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.versusPANTHA CHATTERJEE AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2003 INSC 307
- Decided
- 7 July 2003
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- BRIJESH KUMAR
Holding
Part‑time Border Wing Home Guards are entitled to the same emoluments and conditions of service as permanent BWHGs, and the Union of India must reimburse the State of West Bengal for the salary liability.
Summary
The State of West Bengal raised a battalion of Border Wing Home Guards (BWHG) under a 1976 Central Government scheme, recruiting both full‑time and part‑time volunteers who were to serve for three months. The part‑time BWHGs were continuously deployed for over a decade, performing the same duties as permanent BWHGs but receiving only nominal honoraria. They filed writ petitions alleging discrimination in emoluments and service conditions. The Calcutta High Court held that the part‑time BWHGs were not merely volunteers and were entitled to the same benefits as permanent staff, placing the liability for salary reimbursement on the Union of India. The State appealed, arguing the Central Government should not bear the financial burden. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s view, stating that the prolonged deployment removed the voluntary character, creating a master‑servant relationship with the State, and that the Central Government, as the scheme’s architect, must reimburse the State. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and specific directions were issued for payment and reimbursement.
Issues considered
- The legal nature of the employment relationship between part‑time BWHGs and the State/Central Government.
- Whether part‑time BWHGs are entitled to parity of emoluments and service conditions with permanent BWHGs.
- Responsibility for payment of salaries and allowances: State Government or Union of India.
Subjects
service lawparity of emolumentshome guardsequal pay for equal workcentral‑state financial liabilityemployment relationshipborder securitypart‑time vs permanent staff
Judgment
STA TE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. A
v.
PANTHA CHATTERJEE AND ORS.
JULY 7, 2003
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARL JJ.] B
Service Law:
Parity in emoluments and working conditions-State Government
raising battalion of Home Guards for patrolling border and checking C
infiltration-Recruitment by State Government and also initial expenditure
incurred by it-Deployment by Central Government-Expenditure on salaiy
to be incurred by State Government but to be reimbursed by Central
Government-Home guardv volunteers to be deployed initially for not more
than three months-However, Home Guards serving without a break in service D
for a long time-State Government recommending regularization of their
services as permanent BWHGs-Pe1forming similar duties and discharging
same responsibility as of permanent Home Guards-Disparity in emoluments
and service conditions-Writ petition seeking parity-Single Judge of High
Court holding that they are not volunteers engaged in casual nature of work
to be termed as part time staff thus entitled to same benefits as admissible E
to permanent home guards and Union of India responsible for salary and
other allowances payable as ;·eimbursement to State Government-Division
Bench upholding the same-Correctness of-Held: Once the scheme could
not be implemented as framed and part-time BWHGs continued under the
authority of those vested with such power to continue them, they cannot be F
denied the same benefits as admissible to the permanent staff of BWHGs-
Hence, High Court rightly accorded parity with permanent staff of BWHGs-
State being in the position of an emp.'oyer, owes the primary responsibility
of making all the payments but this burden of expenditure must ultimately
be borne by Central Government and it cannot get out of its liability-West
Bengal Home Guards Act, 1962. G
Government of India promulgated a scheme and State Government
raised battalion of Border Wings Home Guards (BWHG). This was raised
for the purpose of patrolling the border and checking infiltration of foreigners
from across the borders. The recruitment was to be made by the State
427 H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003J SUPP. I S.C.R.
A Government and also the initial expenditure of setting up the battalion. The
deployment was to be made by the Central Government. The expenditure
incurred in payment of salary for implementing the scheme was to be incurred
by the State Government which was to be reimbursed by the Central
Government State Government as per the scheme recruited full time and part
time BWHGs. BWHG volunteers were to be deployed initially for not more
B than three months. However, they have been continuously deployed without
break in service for a long time. BWHG performed same duties and
discharged same responsibilities as the permanent BWHG. However, there
has been disparity in their emoluments and other conditions. State
Government recommended for making the services of Home Guards
C permanent Respondents BWHG filed writ petition complaining that they were
being discriminated vis-a-vis other regular BWHG and Border Security Force
Personnel. Single Judge of High Court held that they could not be treated as
volunteers engaged in casual nature of work so as to be treated as part-time
staff and that they are entitled to the same benefits as admissible to the
permanent BWHGs; and that Union of India is responsible for the salary and
D other allowances payable since the Central Government had undertaken to
reimburse the State Government. On behalf of the State Government it was
contended that the liability to make payment would be of Central Government
alone. Division Bench upheld the order of Single Judge. Hence the present
appeal
E
Union of India contended that the State Government could not fasten the
financial liability upon the Central Government; that the respondent-
petitioners are not the employees of the Central Government; and that the
petitioners are not be entitled to the relief as granted by the High Court.
F Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: I.I The part time Border Wing Home Guards could not be
treated differently from the permanent staff of the BWHG. High Court rightly
accorded parity with them. [441-DI
G 1.2. BWHGs have been continuously deployed since 1978-79. Such a
long and continued deployment, which was initially envisaged only for a period
of three months, was contrary to the Scheme taking away the voluntary nature
of the Scheme. The step taken in 1992 to disengage them and withdrawal of
the power to recruit because of the number of cases filed in Court for same
emoluments and conditions of service as applicable to the permanent staff of
H
STATE v. PANTHA CHATTERJEE 429
the BWHGs, is only to be ignored as extraneous. By that time they had already A
put in near about 14 years of service. After working for such a long period,
patrolling the borders in all weathers without any facilities, as provided to
other permanent staff of BWHGs and performing same duties, it is too much
to say that their deployment was of a casual and voluntary nature and the
Central Government will not be concerned with them and it would be the
responsibility of the State Government alone. It would not be expected of the
B
Central Government to cling to technicalities of forms rather than to see the
substance and realities of existing facts and prevailing situation which is of
their own making. It is simply unfair on their part to keep on quibbling with
the questions that there existed no relationship of master and servant, or that
BWHG were simply volunteers under a Scheme having acquired no rights. C
At this stage it is totally unfair and unreasonable to tell BWHG that it is
only the State Government which concerns them and the Central Government
has nothing to do with it at all. 1436-E, G; 437-A-D)
1.3. It was the Scheme of the Central Government; it should have
monitored its implementation to see that it was being executed as framed. The D
BWHGs were deployed and continued by BSF authorities, who were authorized
in that behalf by the Central Government They could not be left in lurch after
being engaged continuously for more than 10 to 15 years for patrolling the
borders under the conditions worthy of those who were doing the same job
under the label of permanent staff. The Central Government could not hanker E
on technicalities of voluntary nature of their engagement despite their own
admission of facts to the contrary. The stand of the State and the Central
Government both are not bona fide. It is not good for an ideal employer to
avoid liability and deny to give, what is legally due to one. Defeating such
genuine and legal claims on technicalities would only result in great injustice.
1439-B-EI F
1.4. The distinction sought to be drawn between the part-time and the
permanent BWHGs had obliterated and both worked together shoulder to
shoulder under similar situations and circumstances and discharged same
duties. Once the scheme as framed failed to be implemented as such by those
at the helm of the affairs and the part-time BWHGs were continued under G
the authority of those vested with such power to continue them, it is not open
to the State Government or the Central Government to deny them the same
benefits as admissible to members of the permanent staff of BWHGs.
1440-C, DI
H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A 1.5. On the basis of the scheme, the Border Wing Home Guards were
to be paid from a given head of expenditure of the State Government. This
expenditure incurred would be reimbursed by the Central Government. It is
no doubt true that the State being in the position of an employer of the
respondent-prtitioners, owes the primary responsibility of making all the
B payments on account of salary, allowances and other perquisites to them as
admissible to the permanent staff of the Border Wing Home Guards but this
burden of expenditure must be ultimately borne by the Central Government.
Respondents have been guarding the borders of the country assisting the BSF
in checking the infiltration from across the border. They have been working
and discharging their duties under the control of the authorities of the Border
C Security Force. The authority to continue the deployment beyond the period
of 3 months was entrusted to the responsible authorities of the Border Security
Force by the Central Government itself. The primary responsibility of
deployment for such long duration squarely lies upon the Central Government.
There is no dispute that the writ petitioners were continued accordingly. In
D such a situation, the State Government hardly had any choice in the matter to
cease or withdraw the deployment engaged in the job of patrolling of borders
under operational control of BSF. Therefore, the Central Government cannot
shed its responsibility by pleading that it was because of the State Government
that voluntary character of the engagement of the writ petitioners, as per
scheme, was lost. The Central Government must in all fairness accept its
E responsibility and make the necessary funds available for reimbursement, at
the earliest. (440-F, G, H; 441-A-C, El
Jaipal and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors., etc. etc., (1988] 3
SCC 354; Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1986[ I
SCC 637; Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India and Ors.,
F [1991] 1 SCC 619; Daily Rated Casual Labour through Bhartiya Dak Tar
Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and Ors., [1988[ 1 SCC 122; Karnataka
State Private College Stop-gap Lecturer's Association v. State of Karnataka
and Ors., [1992] 2 SCC 29; Government of India and Ors. v. Court
Liquidator's Employees Association and Ors., [1999[ 8 SCC 560; State of West
G Bengal v. Kanak Chandra, AIR [1987[ SC 664; Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor
Manch v. Union of India and Ors., AIR [ 19871 SC 2342; Bhagwan Dass and
Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR [ 19871 SC 2049 and Delhi Transport
Corporation v. D.TC. Mazdoor Congress and Ors., AIR 11991[ SC 101 -
referred to.
H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4420of1999.
STATE v. PANTHA CHATTER.IEE [BRl.IESH KUMAR. j.] 431
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5.1996 of the Calcutta High Court A
in F.M.AT. No. 3556 of 1992.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 4421/99, 4422/99 and 4423/99.
T.C. Ray, H.K. Puri, Ujjwal Banerjee, S.K. Puri, Ms. Anindita Gupta for B
the Appellants.
Raju Ramachandran, Additional Soliciter General, Shanti Bhushan, Sanjev
Sen, Rajesh Pathak, S. Sukumaran, Ramesh Babu M.R., S.W.A. Qadri, Ajay
Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, P Parmeswaran, Rakesh U. Upadhyay and V.K.
Sidharthan for the Respondents. C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BRIJESH KUMAR, J. The State of West Bengal and others have
preferred these appeals against the judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench of Calcutta High Court, dated May 2, 1996, dismissing their appeals D
with some modification in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, allowing,
by a common judgment, four writ petitions filed by respondents-petitioners.
It will be pertinent to mention here that the Union of India, the Inspector
General, Border Security Force and the Commandant 65 Battalion, Border
Security Force, Calcutta were also impleaded, in the appeal, as proforma E
respondents l 0 to 12 in the High Court.
The part time Border Wing Home Guards (for short 'BWHG') being
dissatisfied with the pitiable conditions of service under which they had been
working and the nominal emoluments paid to them, preferred four writ petitions
before the Calcutta High Court complaining that they were being discriminated F
vis-a-vis other regular Border Wing Home Guards of the West Bengal and the
Border Security Force Personnel, as the writ petitioner-respondents had also
been performing similar duties and discharging same responsibilities. The
learned Single Judge considering all the material on the record, came to the
conclusion that there is a relationship of master and servant between the writ
petitioners and the State of West Bengal, who is their appointing authority G
as well. So far the nature of the employment is concerned, as to whether it
was casual and voluntary, the learned Single Judge has referred to the Memo
dated October 11, 1985 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Home (Civil Defence)
Government of West Bengal, a part of which is reproduced herewith: "though
the Border Wing Home Guard boys are supposed to render voluntary service H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. I S.C.R.
A and are subject to rotational duty, actually the same sets who were enrolled
and deployed at the time offonnation of the Battalion in 1977 are still working
and their duties have never been rotated." On the basis of the above, the
Government of West Bengal had strongly recommended for making the services
of the part time Border Wing Home Guards as pennanent WBHG. The learned
B Single Judge has therefore concluded that the petitioners could not be treated
as volunteers engaged in causal nature of work so as to be termed as part
time staff of the Government of West Bengal.
The learned Single Judge also referred to a decision of Guwahati High
Court in C.R. No. 119of1981 (Ratanlal Dutta v. State ofTripura and Ors.)
C which in turn relying upon AIR ( 1987) SC 664, State of West Bengal v. Kanak
Chandra, held that there existed relationship of master and servant between
such home guards and the State government. They were also held to be
holders of civil posts under Article 311 of the Constitution and members of
pennanent staff of the State Government. After referring to decisions of this
Court, a few of which may be mentioned here eg. AIR (1987) SC 2342 Bhartiya
D Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and Ors., on the point that the
Government could not take advantage of its dominant position to treat the
work as casual and retain them on lower wages and AIR 1987 SC 2049, )"
Bhagwan Dass and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. for the proposition '
'equal pay for equal work' besides AIR 1991 SC IOI, Delhi Transport
E Corporation v. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress and Ors., it has been held by the
learned Single Judge that the petitioner-respondents are entitled to the same
benefits as admissible to the permanent BWHGs.
It has also been found that Union of India is responsible for the salary
and other allowances payable to the writ petitioners which the Central
F Government had undertaken to reimburse to the State Government but the
appropriate authority for redressal of their grievance is only the State of West
Bengal and not the Border Security Force or Union of India. It was also found
that there was clear discrimination between the pennanent staff and the part
time Border Wing Home Guards on all counts. So far the question of
reimbursement is concerned it is held that the dispute is between the State
G Government and the Central Government which has to be sorted out between
them and the respondent-writ petitioners could not be concerned with it.
The learned Single Judge finally issued the following specific directions:
(I) part time members of the Border Wing Home Guards would be treated at
H par with whole time staff of the Border Wing Home Guards, (II) they would
STATE v. PANTHA CHA HER.TEE [BRI.IESH KUMAR. J.) 433
get all the privileges of the State arn1ed police as extended to a full time Border A
Security Wing Home Guards (Ill) all the benefits available to the West Bengal
Government Servants, for example, fixation of pay, benefit of provident fund,
gratuity, retiral benefits and allowances and leave etc. shall also be made
admissible to the petitioners (IV) arrears of service benefits were also directed
to be given to them since the time of their joining (V) they were also directed B
to be absorbed irrespective of age bar which would stand waived. The
judgment was to operate in rem covering all the part time members of the
Border Wing Home Guards and each of the petitioner was awarded cost of
Rs. 1,000 which cumulatively came to Rs. 2,73,000.
The Division Bench also arrived at and upheld the findings as recorded C
by learned Single Judge. The State of West Bengal also seems to have
canvassed before the Bench that the liability to make payment would only be
that of the Central Government alone. However, we find that on considering
the facts and circumstances and the memos issued from time to time by the
Government of India and State of West Ben~al, the Division Bench held that
the Battalion of Border Wing Home Guards was raised by the State Government D
and they were being paid by and from a particular head of expenditure of the
State Government. The Union of India had only undertaken for the full
reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the State government but this
would not be enough to hold that the respondent-writ petitioners are employees
of Union of India. So far BSF is concerned, they exercise only operational E
control over them in the field. In our view, the Division Bench has rightly
arrived at and upheld the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. The
I work, it has been observed, is of a perennial nature and no one was
discontinued on expiry of three months of initial appointment. Therefore,
there was no occasion to disengage them after they were continued for years
after years, on the ground that they were engaged for causal nature of work. F
With the above findings, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal with a
modification that the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the
judgment was in rem and levy of costs of Rs. 1,000 for each petitioner, was
set aside.
It appears that necessity was felt for raising of Border Wing Home G
Guards Battalion in the States of Assam, 'Meghalaya, Tripura and West
Bengal so as to strengthen the measures against infiltrations of foreigners
from across the borders. With that view, the Government of India, Ministry
of Home Affairs promulgated a scheme by means of Memo No. 1117175-DGCD
(HG) dated October 15, 1976 Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. I S.C.R.
A It was addressed to the Chief Secretaries to the Governments of Assam,
Meghalaya, Tripura and West Bengal. It is indicated in the scheme that the
>
President had sanctioned the raising af one Border Wing Home Guards
Battalion with immediate effect. The Battalion was to be raised, as far as
practicable, from within a belt zone of 30 miles along the border, any slight
B variation, if necessary, could be permissible by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The strength of the Border Wing Home Guards Battalions was to be within
the existing allocated strength of States concerned. The preference was to be
given to the Home guards Organisation already on the rolls but it was to be
ensured that they were available for duty during emergencies both for long
and short durations. They were to conform to the required qualifications/
C standards. With a view to raise the Battalion speedily, permanent staff was
provided to be taken on loan or retired defence, police personnel could also
be taken in the Battalion. BWHG were to be utilized for the jobs assigned to
them but the State Government could also deploy them for its purpose with
prior clearance from the Home Ministry, Government of India. The expenditure
incurred in payment of salary etc. for implementing the scheme was to be met
D by the Government of India. The initial expenditure on setting up the Battalion
was to be incurred by the State Government itself. In case of urgency, if the
State deployed the BWHG for its own purpose, the expenditure for such
deployment was to be met by the State Government.
E The duties assigned to the Border Wing Home Guards is to be found
in the appendix to the Memo dated 15.10.1976. According to which in the
normal times and during period of tension on the Border they were to assist
in providing local security to the border villages and thereby boost the morale
of inhabitants and to pose as a deterrent against pilferage from across the
•
\
border. The other duty was to protect the lines of communication in times of
F emergency and to assist the local administration in tackling the problems of
internal security in the border areas and further as and when required to
provide sub-units as auxiliaries to the Border Security Force including for the
purpose of patrolling along the border and checking and preventing infiltrations.
In pursuance of the above said letter of the Govt. of India, dated
G 15. I0.1976, the West Bengal Police Directorate issued a letter dated 14.3.1977
addressed to the Superintende;t of Police of seven districts in the State of
West Bengal in connection with raising 8 companies of the Border Wing
Home Guards as desired by the Govt. of India. A "secret" appendix was also
enclosed along with the letter dated 15.10.1976 issued by the Govt. of India.
H Apart from indicating the role of the Border Wing Home Guards, it indicates
STATE v. PANTHA CHATTERJEE [BRIJESH KUMAR, .1.] 435
the strength of the platoon and the number of persons with their designation A
who were to be employed on full time pay basis as well as on part time basis.
It was provided that full time establishment was to be paid scale of pay and
allowances admissible to the State armed police whereas Home Guards on part
time basis were to be paid honorarium ranging from Rs.5 per month to Rs.15
per month depending upon the rank, namely, Guardsman, Lance Naik, Naik, B
Platoon Havaldar. The State Government, accordingly, as per Scheme of
Government of India, recruited full time and, part time Border Wing Home
Guards, under the West Bengal Home Guards Act, 1962.
The main plank to oppose the writ petitions filed by the respondents
has been that "Home Guards" is a voluntary organization. The part time C
Border Wing Home Guards are entitled to the honorarium and they are to be
paid only as and when their services are required and utilised. Their
appointment was not to exceed for a period of more than three months except
in cases where it was recommended otherwise by the authorities of the Border
Security Force.
D
What emerges out from the two documents referred to above, on the
basis of which Border Wing Home Guards was raised, is that they were
required, amongst other, for the purposes of patrolling the border as well with
a view to check infiltration from across the border. They have to help and
assist and to do the patrolling etc. aiong with and under the supervision and
direction of the Border Security Force authorities. One thing which deserves E
to be noticed is that duties of the permanent Border Wing Home Guards and
part time Border Wing Home Guards are the same, and performed under the
same situation and circumstances but there has been disparity in their
emoluments and other facilities, necessities for performing their duties, details
of which are not necessary to be indicated here. Yet another thing which is F
clear is that the scheme under which Border Wing Home Guards battalion was
raised is the scheme of the Central Government which in substance is being
implemented through the machinery of the State Government with a condition
that pay and salary etc. of the full time and part time Border Wing Home
Guards is to be borne by the Central Government. They have to assist and
work always with border security personnel along the borders of the country. G
So far the engagement for a period of three months is concerned, it has been
stated in the counter affidavit filed in this Court on 4.5.1998 sworn by Shri
0. C. Mehta, Lt. Col. Assistant Director General, Home Guards, Ministry of
Home Affairs, in Para 16 as follows:
H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A "In tenns of the instruction of the Government of India, Govt. of West
Bengal raised one Bn. Consisting of8 companies ofBWHG volunteers.
Since inception, all the 8 coys of BWHG volunteers in West Bengal
were being utilized by the DG, BSF on the lndo Bangla Desh Border.
For this purpose, Ministry of Home Affairs vide their letter No.IIJ-
140 I 1/6/79-DGCD(HG) dated 7th June 1979 issued suitable instructions
B for utilization of BWHG volunteers by the BSF authorities. Under
these instructions, DG, BSF concerned are to sent requisition for
home Guards of the concerned number of BWHG volunteers to the
Comdt. General Home Guards of the concerned number ofBWHG. It
has also been stipulated in their said instructions of this ministry, that
c deployment of BWHG volunteers will not be for prolonged periods.
On the basis of these instructions, DG, BSF had been approving
deployment of BWHG volunteers to assist BSF initially for a period
of 3 months each time which had been extended continually after
every three months since 1978-79. Although the deployment ofBWHG
volunteers would not be prolonged, a stipulated vide sub para (vi) of
D MHA letter No. 111-14011/6/79-DG (HG) dated 7th June 1979 but in
actual practice since 1978-79 the same members of BWHGs in West
Bengal had been under continuous deployment with the BSF on
account of extension of deployment period by DG, BSF on the basis
of the authority given to DG, BSF. As a result all the part time
E members of 8 coys of BWHGs had been serving in aid of BSF since
1978-79 without break in service.
From the above avennent, it is clear that BWHGs have been continuously
deployed since 1978-79. It is also to be found that such a Jong and continued
deployment, which was initially envisaged only for a period of three months,
F was contrary to the Scheme taking away the voluntary nature of the Scheme.
It appears that it was after their continued deployment for over I0 years that
in 1989 the petitioners approached the High Court for same emoluments and
conditions of service as applicable to the pennanent staff of the BWHGs. The
Scheme envisaged that on being released, after a period of three months, the
volunteer Home Guards could go back and resume their vocations and may
G earn their livelihood and may be called as and when needed again for a short
period whereafter again they could pursue their vocation. The step which
seems to have been taken to disengage them and withdrawal of the power to
recruit because of the number of cases filed in Court, is only to be ignored
as extraneous. It is said to have been done in the year 1992. By that time they
H had already put in near about 14 years of service. After working for such a
STATE v. PA NTH A CHATTERJEE [SRI.TESH KUMAR. J.] 437
long period, patrolling the borders in all weathers without any facilities, as A
provided to other permanent staff of BWHGs and performing same duties, it
is too much to say that their deployment was of a casual and voluntary nature
and the Central Government will not be concerned with them and that it would
be the responsibility of the State Government alone. The problem of infiltration
continues. It is not over. To say that they are being disengaged since they B
volunteered to be BWHG and they are free to resume their previous vocation,
is simply arbitrary, unreasonable and legally unacceptable. Once they were
made to work for ten to fifteen years or so without break, there hardly
remained any chance or scope for them to resume their old vocations. The
attitude of the Central Government, the least to say, is surprisingly strange.
It would not be expected of them to cling to the technicalities of forms rather C
than to see the substance and realities of existing facts and prevailing situation
which is of their own making. It is simply unfair on their part to keep on
quibbling with the questions that there existed no relationship of master and
servant, or that BWHG were simply volunteers under a Scheme having acquired
no rights, it is immaterial, whatever be the circumstances. Once the decision
was taken to disengage them, the Central Government under the guise of the D
scheme wanted to wash off its hands of these people who have been guarding
the borders of the country for years together under all conditions and
circumstances, at its instance. Now to tell them that it is only the State
Government which concerns them and the Central Government has nothing
to do with it at all, is totally unfair and unreasonable. E
There is no dispute about the fact that there has been disparity in
emoluments and other working conditions, between the part time BWHGs and
the BWHGs on the permanent staff although both have been deployed for
performing the same nature of duties and have been working for the same
duration in the same conditions but one of them with and the other without F
the necessities of the job, facilities and benefits of the service. It is true and
rightly held that BWHG could not compare themselves with BSF personnel
but the difference between the permanent staff and the part time staff which
had been made in the scheme was obliterated and rendered ineffective. There
is no real distinction between the two, namely, the permanent BWHG and the G
part time BWHG in absence of non-release of the latter after three months of
the appointment, as per the Sch~me. It has not been indicated by the appellants
or the Union of India that the petitioners were ever disengaged of their
assignment temporarily or the State Government had availed of their serviees
after due and prior permission of the Central Government, or they were ever
freed to resume their old vocational pursuits. It is in the affidavit of the H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A authorities that BWHGs are under operational command of B.S.F. authorities,
when deployed for patrolling along lndo-Bangladesh border. In the background
of what has been indicated above, in our view the findings arrived at by the
High Court cannot be faulted with.
On the first date of hearing in this matter the learned Additional Solicitor
B General appearing for the Union of India urged that the State of West Bengal
could not argue the matter in a manner so as to fasten the liability upon the
Central Government, since the Union of India was impleaded only as a proforma
respondent. Therefore, it was not open for the appellant to take the Govt. of
India by surprise and seek relief which may saddle the Central Government
C with financial liability or to say, that the petitioners-respondent are the
employees of the Central Government. We find that in the appeal this aspect
was considered by the High Court vis-a-vis these two parties viz. State of
West Bengal and the Central Government. In any case so as to be able to
argue the matter on merits and to have further instructions in that connection,
from the Central Government, as prayed by the learned Additional Solicitor
D General the matter was adjourned. After having received the necessary
instructions, the learned Addi. Solicitor General took up the stand that the
petitioners will not be entitled to relief as granted by the High Court for the
following reasons:
I. The petitioners have been members of a voluntary organization;
E
2. They were recruited under the State Home Guard Act by the
State machinery;
3. Master and servant relationship of the petitioners existed only
with the State Government; and
F 4. Central Government was liable to bear the financial liability as
provided under the Scheme.
Surprisingly, the point of it being a voluntary organization is beaten
time and again by the State a~ well as by the Centre, despite their own
admission that voluntary charac1er of the Scheme was lost due to continuous
G deployment of the petitioners for long number of years and their non-relieving
after three months to enable them to go back to their vocational engagement.
In that connection it may again be pertinent to reproduce Paragraph 4 of the
counter-affidavit filed in this Court by the Central Government on 4.5.1998:
"The contents of Para 4 of the counter affidavit needs no reply since
H matters ofrecord. The present situation which led to BWHG volunteers
STATE v. l'ANTHA CHATTERJEE (BRIJESH KUMAR . .I.] 439
claiming service benefits is due to the fact that voluntary concept A
which is back bone of home guards organizations was not followed
in letter and spirit by the state government. Due to continuous
deployment neither the turnover of personnel was carried nor
apparently mandatory training was imparted ......... "
By whose fault this scheme lost character of Voluntary Nature is not relevant B
for the purposes of the petitioners. It was the Scheme of the Central
Government, it should have monitored its implementation to see that it was
being executed as framed. Then again, the BWHGs were deployed and
continued by BSF authorities, who were authorised in that behalf by the
Central Government. BWHG could not be left in a lurch after being engaged C
continuously for more than 10 to 15 years for patrolling the borders under the
conditions worthy of those who were doing the same job under the label of
, permanent staff. During all this period they were paid less and facilities and
amenities were also almost nil. After suffering such a discrimination for a
period of about a decade or more, when they approached the Court, then
alone a decision is taken to disengage them for the reason that cases were D
being filed in the Court for being provided with similar conditions of service
which were being enjoyed by their counter-part under the label of permanent
staff. The Central Government could not hanker on technicalities of voluntary
nature of their engagement despite their own admission of facts to the contrary.
The stand of the State and the Central Government both are not bona fide. E
It is not good for an ideal employer to avoid liability and deny to give, what
is legally due to one. Defeating such genuine and legal claims on technicalities
would only result in great injustice.
With a view to recapitulate the legal position, we may briefly refer to
some decisions of this Court apart from those relied upon by the High Court. F
In a decision reported in [ 1988] 3 SCC p.3 54, Jaipal and Ors. etc. etc. v. State
of Haryana and Ors. etc. etc., it has been held to be a constitutional obligation
to ensure equal pay for equal work where the two sets of employees discharge
similar responsibilities under similar working conditions. The plea of temporary
or casual nature of employment or full time and part time employees had been
negated. Similarly, in the case reported in [1986] l sec 637, Dhirendra Chamoli G
and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was held that casual workers could not
be denied same emoluments and benefits as admissible to the temporary
employees on the ground that they had accepted the employment with full
knowledge of their disadvantage. In (1991) I SCC p.619, Grih Kalyan Kendra
Workers' Union v. Union of India and Ors., though on facts no discrimination H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A was found but the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was upheld and
recognized where all were placed similarly and discharging same duties and
responsibilities irrespective of casual nature of work. This right had been held
to have assumed status of a fundamental right in service jurisprudence having
regard to constitutional mandate of 'equality' in Articles 14 and 16. In Daily
Rated Casual Labour through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union
B of India and Ors., [ 1988] I SCC p.122, right of daily rated casual workers in
the P & T department was recognized and they were directed to be paid in
minimum of the scale as was admissible to the regular workers as both
discharged similar work and responsibilities.
c about Inthethenature
present case we have seen that there has not been any dispute
of duties of the two sets of BWHGs. Ordinarily, no doubt
they could claim benefits only in accordance with the scheme under which
they were engaged. But as held earlier, the scheme was not implemented in
its terms as framed. Hence, the distinction sought to be drawn between the
part-time and the permanent BWHGs had obliterated and both worked together
D shoulder to shoulder under similar situations and circumstances and discharged
same duties. Once the scheme as framed failed to be implemented as such by
those at the helms of the affairs and the part-time BWHGs were continued
under the authority of those vested with such power to continue them, it is
not open to the State Government or the Central Government to deny them
E the same benefits as admissible to members of the permanent staff of BWHGs.
The decisions reported in [1992] 2 SCC p.29, Karnataka State Private College
Stop-gap Lecturer's Association v. State ofKarnataka and Ors., [I 999] 8 SCC
560, Government of India and Ors. v. Court Liquidator's Employees
Association and Ors. may also be beneficially referred to.
F On the basis of the scheme, as promulgated by Government of India,
the State Government with the sanction of the Governor of West Bengal
raised the Battalion of Border Wing Home Guards, as indicated earlier and
they were to be paid from a given head of expenditure of the State Government
The Scheme, however, makes it clear that the expenditure incurred would be
reimbursed by the Central government. The Central Government should not
G and cannot get out of this undertaking. It is no doubt true that the State of
West Bengal being in the position of an employer of the respondent- petitioners,
owes the primary responsibility of making all the payments on account of
salary, allowances and other perquisites to them as admissible to the permanent
staff of the Border Wing Home Guards but this burden of expenditure must
H be ultimately borne by the Central Government. The petitioners have been
STATE v. PANTHA CHA HER.IEE [BRIJESH KUMAR, .I.] 441
guarding the borders of the country assisting the BSF in checking the A
infiltration from across the border. The petitioners have been working and
discharging their duties under the control of the authorities of the Border
Security Force. We also find that the Central governmen~ cannot shed its
responsibility by raising a lame plea that it was because of the State Government
that voluntary character of the engagement of the writ petitioners, as per B
scheme, was lost. In our view, the primary responsibility for deployment for
such a long duration squarely lies upon the Central government. The
deployment was envisaged to be for a period of 3 months, ::i be continued,
only if necessary as may be assessed by the authorities of the Border
Security Force. The authority to continue the employment beyond the period
of 3 months was entrusted to the responsible authorities of the Border C
Security Force by the Central Government itself. There is no dispute that the
writ petitioners were continued accordingly. In such a situation the State
Government hardly had any choice in the matter to cease or withdraw the
deployment engaged in the job of patrolling of borders under operational
control ofBSF.
D
In the circumstances indicated above the High Court has rightly come
to the conclusion that so called part time Border Wing Home Guards could
not be treated differently from the permanent staff of the BWHG. They have
been rightly accorded parity with them.
The petitioners may not suffer any further because of any confusion or E
misunderstanding between the Central and the State Government, if at all, we,
therefore, feel it necessary to observe that the Central government must in
all fairness accept its responsibility and make the necessary funds available
for reimbursement, at the earliest. In this regard we make the specific directions
to the effect that: (I) The State Government shall carry out order passed by F
the High Court and clear all the consequent:al monetary benefits to the writ
petitioner-respondents within a period of 3 months from today with Statement
of account to be forwarded to the Central Government for reimbursement; (2)
The Central Government within two months of the receipt of the said
reimbursement statement shall reimburse the amount to the State of West
Bengal; (3) In case there is any dispute or confusion in regard to the actual G
amount payable on account of reimbursement or otherwise. the same shall be
sorted out between the State of West Bengal and the Central Government at
.the earliest but that would not be cause of delay in payment as indicated
above; (4) that there shall be no delay in payment to be made as scheduled
above by the State of West Bengal to the petitioners nor by the Central H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A Government to the State of Bengal on account of reimbursement which may
be subject to final settlement; in case of any dispute or doubt about the same,
to 1le sorted out sooner or later between them.
The appeals preferred by the appellant-State of West Bengal are
dismissed with costs subject to modification/further directions as indicated in
B the preceding paragraph.
N.J. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search