STATE OF ODISHA Vs. PRAKASH KUMAR JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.8148 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the applicants (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein) namely; Prakash Kumar Jena, Prasanna Kumar Behera and Lokanath Mohanta, has been allowed with the following directions:

(2.) According to the case set up by the respondents in the writ petition, they are working as Home Guards for more than 10 years under the Home Department of appellants-State of Odisha. In the writ petition, they sought a direction to the appellant-State of Odisha to disburse their salary as per the direction of the Apex Court in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2015 6 SCC 247and subsequent order dated 04.05.2016 passed in a contempt petition i.e. Contempt Petition (C) No.699-700 of 2015, by which the Apex Court has clarified its earlier order. Prayer was also made by the respondents to give them benefit of 7th Pay Commission from the date this has been given to their counter parts by other States.

(3.) The Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association, (supra) considered the working conditions of the Home Guards in different States of the Country, especially, the State of Himachal Pradesh, Bombay, and NCT of Delhi. While reiterating its earlier view that the 'Home Guards' is a volunteer organization, the Supreme Court held that their enrolment cannot be considered as an appointment on regular basis. They are not paid salary as is granted to the regular employee but are only paid Duty Allowance and other allowances. But at the same time, the Supreme Court observed that it was not the case of the State Governments that enrollment/appointments of the Home Guards were back door engagement and were made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and on that basis, it held that the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) and ors., 2006 4 SCC 1, would not be applicable to their case. Observing that the Home Guards are paid duty allowances and other allowances only for the period of time they are required to perform their duty, the Supreme Court held that no relief can be granted to the appellants either of regularization in services or of regular appointment. The Supreme Court however allowed the appeals in part with the following directions: