Himachal Pradesh High Court

Jogindra vs State Of H.P. & Others on 21 July, 2025

2025:HHC:23412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWPOA No.5422 of 2020 a/w

CWPOA No.6225 of 2020 Reserved on: 09.07.2025 Date of Decision: 21. 07.2025

1. CWPOA No.5422 of 2020 Jogindra ...Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents

2. CWPOA No.6225 of 2020

Mano Devi ...Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? Yes

For the petitioners: Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge Both these petitions were heard together and are

being decided by a common judgment as common questions of

facts and law are involved.

2. The petitioners in both the petitions are claiming

appointment under 'Employment Assistance Scheme to the

dependents of Government Servants' (for convenience,

"Compassionate Appointment Scheme").

3. The case of the petitioners is that their respective

husbands were Home Guards (Volunteer) engaged under the

provisions of Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1968. During

continuance of their engagement, they had died.

4. The petitioners approached the respondent

authorities for appointment under Compassionate Appointment

Scheme of the State Government, but their claims were rejected

on the ground that the benefit of Compassionate Appointment

Scheme was not available to the Home Guards or their families

as the Home Guards were neither in the permanent employment

nor could they be termed as Government servants.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have gone through the record carefully.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend

that the Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1968 and the 1971

Rules framed thereunder do not exclude the operation of

Compassionate Appointment Scheme to the Home Guards or

their dependents. He would further contend that the

Compassionate Appointment Scheme also does not exclude its

applicability to the Home Guards.

7. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed

by Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court on 19.05.2006, in Case No:

.

WPS No.1390 of 2006, titled Chanda Devi vs. The State of

Jharkhand and others to assert that in similar circumstances,

while interpreting the provisions of Bihar Home Guards Act, the

dependents of Home Guards have been held entitled to the

benefit of Compassionate Appointment Scheme.

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General

would submit that the appointment of Home Guards is not on

regular basis. They are paid only temporary allowance during the

period when they are called upon to discharge the duties. No

salary or wages are paid to them. He placed reliance on a

judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak,

Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh & others, (2015) 6 SCC 247, wherein the claim of

Home Guards for regularization of their services was declined.

9. The nature of employment of Home Guards under

Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Act has been considered by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare

Association (supra) in following terms:

"33. In the cases before us though some of the Home Guards (Grah Rakshak) produced their appointment letters to show that they are serving as Platoon Havaldar for 10 to 28

years, we find that they have been enrolled and there is no appointment on regular basis. They have never been paid salary/wages and

.

there is no provision to make any payment of

salary/wages other than the duty allowance and other allowances.

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 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.

35. Similar is the case of Bombay Home

Guards, who have been appointed as volunteers Home Guards under the Act. They

also have given declaration that they have volunteered as a member of the Home Guard.

36. The Home Guards of N.C.T. of Delhi also have been appointed to the organization which is volunteer body under the Act. Provision discussed above makes it clear that Chief Commissioner of Delhi only engage volunteers in the Home Guards. The Home Guards being volunteer body in the N.C.T. of Delhi, the appellants-Home Guards of Delhi cannot be claimed to be regular appointees.

37. It is not the case of the State Government that enrollment/appointments of the Home Guards were backdoor 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) is not

applicable in the case of the appellants-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 police personnel.

39. In view of the discussion made above, no relief can be granted to the appellants either regularization of services or grant of regular appointments hence no interference is called for against the judgments 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 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."

10. The aforesaid observations were made by Hon'ble

Supreme Court while adjudicating upon the issue whether the

Home Guards were entitled for regularization of their services?

Hon'ble Supreme Court has answered the issue in negative for

the reasons, as noticed above.

11. Thus, when the job performed by Home Guards has

been assessed to be purely of temporary nature, it will not be

prudent to hold their dependents entitled to benefit under

Compassionate Appointment Scheme. The dependents of a

Home Guard cannot raise claim for permanent job, when the

Home Guard himself renders only a voluntary and temporary job.

The dependents of Home Guard cannot claim right to any