Daily Allowance Of Home Guards Must Be Revised To Match Minimum Pay Of Police Personnel: Gujarat High Court
Safiya Malik
The Gujarat High Court, Single Bench of Justice Maulik J. Shelat, directed the State Government to revise the daily allowance paid to Home Guards to bring it in line with the minimum pay currently received by police personnel of the State, to be implemented within one month. The Court found that the State's continued payment of ₹450 per day to Home Guards fell short of the standard prescribed by the Supreme Court, which had previously held that Home Guards must receive duty allowance equivalent to the minimum pay of police personnel. The petition was filed by Home Guards seeking parity in remuneration with regular government employees and compliance with existing judicial directions.
The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Home Guards seeking directions against the State authorities regarding their service conditions and duty allowance. The petitioners requested that their services be treated on par with other government employees up to the age of 58 years and sought payment of regular salary including basic pay, dearness allowance, and other allowances available to government employees, along with arrears from the date of appointment. They also sought quashing of the circular dated 16 July 2020 and implementation of circulars dated 20 March 2020 and 11 September 1987.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the principal grievance was covered by an earlier decision of the Court in a related matter. It was contended that the duty allowance paid to the petitioners, fixed at ₹450 per day pursuant to a State Resolution dated 2 November 2022, remained below the minimum of the pay scale received by police personnel. Reference was made to a communication dated 20 March 2020 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs requesting States to implement the Supreme Court’s decision directing that Home Guards be paid duty allowance equivalent to the minimum pay of police personnel.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the daily allowance had been periodically increased from ₹200 to ₹300 and later to ₹450. It was further submitted that additional benefits such as medical assistance, emergency support, and increased messing allowance had been provided. The State also argued that the service of Home Guards was voluntary and distinct from regular police service.
The Court referred to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Grahak Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh and recorded that: “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.”
The Court examined the subsequent communication issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs directing States to implement the above judgment. It recorded that despite these directions, the State had increased the allowance only from ₹300 to ₹450 through the resolution dated 2 November 2022, which remained below the minimum pay drawn by police personnel.
The Court observed “The State cannot disregard the directives issued by the Government of India or show disrespect for the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court unless they are modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court itself.”
The Court also recorded the stance taken by the State that reconsideration of the allowance would be undertaken only after the outcome of a review petition. The Court observed “Such an adamant approach on the part of the State not even ready to review the daily allowance of Home Guards is nothing but an arbitrariness on part of the State who otherwise considered as ‘model employer’.”
Referring to principles governing arbitrariness in State action, the Court recorded the following passage from the Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs. International Trading Company “The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play.”
The Court further stated “The stance of the State not ready to increase daily allowance of Home Guards is nothing but an arbitrary decision which violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court issued a direction to the State authorities regarding revision of the duty allowance payable to Home Guards. The Court stated “The respondent-State is hereby directed to increase the daily allowance of Home Guards from Rs.450/- to the minimum of the pay received by Police personnel of the respondent-State as on date.”
“Such decision shall be taken by the competent authority of the State within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and appropriate order/resolution may be passed by the State. While passing such order/resolution, the State authorities must keep in mind the direction issued by Hon’ble Apex Court, as aforesaid and accordingly fixed daily allowance.”
“In view of the foregoing conclusions, the present petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. U.T. Mishra for Mr. H.K. Thakor, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Dhruti Pandya, Assistant Government Pleader
Case Title: Rajeshbhai Maheshbhai Jani & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GUJHC:16437
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 9072 of 2020
Bench: Justice Maulik J. Shelat
