Supreme Court Directs Equal Pay for Home Guards based on Police Personnel Pay Scale: Prakash Kumar Jena vs. State of Odisha (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 17, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 207

Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.

Are Home Guards, who perform duties similar to police personnel, entitled to the same minimum pay? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent judgment, clarifying the rights of Home Guards to receive a Duty Call-up Allowance (DCA) equivalent to the minimum pay of police personnel in the state. This decision impacts thousands of Home Guards in Odisha, ensuring they receive fair compensation for their services.

Case Background

The case involves Home Guards in Odisha who had been working for 10 to 15 years under the Home Department. They filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the state to disburse their salary as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2015) 6 SCC 247], and its subsequent clarification. They also sought benefits from the 7th Pay Commission, similar to their counterparts in other states. The Home Guards sought a minimum pay at par with the police personnel of the State.

The learned Single Judge, relying on the Grah Rakshak judgment, directed the State Government to implement the recommendations of the Director General (Fire Service, Home Guards, Civil Defense), Orissa, and to consider the pay increase of constables under the 7th Pay Commission. The Single Judge directed a provisional payment of Rs. 500 per day from January 2020, pending the final decision on the Director General’s recommendations.

The State of Odisha appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court, which largely upheld the Single Judge’s decision but restricted the payment of Rs. 533 per day to the Home Guards from January 2020, instead of November 10, 2016, as initially directed. Both the Home Guards and the State of Odisha then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Home Guards initially filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, seeking implementation of the Supreme Court’s directives in Grah Rakshak. The Single Judge ruled in favor of the Home Guards, directing the State to pay them as per the recommendations of the Director General and considering the 7th Pay Commission.

The State of Odisha appealed this decision to the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s order but modified the effective date for the Rs. 533 per day payment to January 2020, instead of November 10, 2016. Both the Home Guards and the State of Odisha, dissatisfied with the Division Bench’s decision, appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court’s judgment primarily relies on its earlier decision in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2015) 6 SCC 247], where it directed state governments to pay Home Guards a duty allowance equivalent to the minimum pay of police personnel.

The Court also referred to its clarificatory order in Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 699-700 of 2015, which specified that the minimum pay includes basic pay, grade pay, dearness allowance, and washing allowance. The Court clarified that the payment to the Home Guards will not be on a monthly basis, but will be calculated with reference to each day of work put in by the Home Guards.

The Court also considered the Odisha Group-C & Group-D (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013, under which constables are initially appointed on a contractual basis.

Arguments

The State of Odisha argued that the High Court erred in directing payment of Rs. 533 per day as DCA, as it would exceed the entry-level pay of constables recruited under the Odisha Group-C & Group-D (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013. The State contended that the Home Guards were entitled to Rs. 240 per day as DCA, which was revised to Rs. 300 per day after the 7th Pay Commission, along with Rs. 25 per month as washing allowance.

The State further argued that the Director General’s recommendations were not binding and were based on a comparison of daily allowances in other states, without considering the specific circumstances in Odisha. They also claimed that paying Rs. 533 per day would create an anomaly, as it would result in Home Guards earning more than entry-level constables. The State also highlighted the financial burden of implementing the High Court’s order, given the large number of Home Guards in Odisha.

The Home Guards argued that the High Court’s direction to pay Rs. 533 per day was in line with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Grah Rakshak and its clarification. They pointed out that the Supreme Court had directed all states to pay a DCA equivalent to the minimum pay of police personnel, including basic pay, grade pay, dearness allowance, and washing allowance. They also noted that the Government of India had requested all states to comply with this judgment.

The Home Guards highlighted that the Director General had recommended Rs. 533 per day after considering the minimum pay of constables in Odisha. They also argued that the constables’ pay under the 2013 Rules was not the relevant benchmark, as the constables are initially contractual and later made permanent with a minimum pay scale. The Home Guards also emphasized that most other states had already complied with the Grah Rakshak judgment, and Odisha should not be an exception.

The Home Guards further argued that the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in restricting the benefit of Rs. 533 per day from January 2020, as the Supreme Court’s judgment and the Director General’s recommendation were much earlier.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:

• Whether Home Guards are entitled to a Duty Call-up Allowance (DCA) equivalent to the minimum pay of police personnel in the State.
• From which date the Home Guards are entitled to the DCA at the rate of Rs. 533/- per day.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Odisha and partly allowed the appeals filed by the Home Guards. The Court upheld the High Court’s direction to pay Home Guards a DCA of Rs. 533 per day. However, it modified the effective date for arrears to June 1, 2018, the date of filing of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, instead of November 10, 2016, as initially directed by the Single Judge or January 2020 as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

The Court directed the State to pay the arrears within three months and clarified that Home Guards are entitled to periodical pay increases similar to police personnel.

Authorities:

✓ Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2015) 6 SCC 247]*: The Supreme Court followed this judgment, which directed state governments to pay Home Guards a duty allowance equivalent to the minimum pay of police personnel.

✓ Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 699-700 of 2015*: The Supreme Court followed this clarificatory order, which specified that the minimum pay includes basic pay, grade pay, dearness allowance, and washing allowance.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure fair compensation for Home Guards, who perform duties similar to police personnel. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to its previous rulings in Grah Rakshak and the subsequent clarification, which mandated that Home Guards should receive a DCA equivalent to the minimum pay of police personnel.

The Court also considered the fact that most other states had already complied with the Grah Rakshak judgment, and Odisha should not be an exception. While the Court acknowledged the financial burden on the State, it did not use this as a reason to deny the Home Guards their rightful dues. Instead, it struck a balance by restricting the arrears to the date of filing of the writ petition.

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Grah Rakshak, and the subsequent clarification order. The court emphasized the need to ensure that Home Guards receive fair compensation for their services, which are similar to those of police personnel. The court also took into account the fact that most other states had already complied with the Grah Rakshak judgment, and Odisha should not be an exception.

The court’s decision was also influenced by the need to balance the rights of Home Guards with the financial burden on the state. While the court acknowledged the financial implications of its decision, it did not use this as a reason to deny the Home Guards their rightful dues. Instead, it struck a balance by restricting the arrears to the date of filing of the writ petition.

The Court considered the State’s argument that the Home Guards should receive the same pay as the contractual constables, but rejected it. The Court held that the Home Guards are entitled to the minimum pay of regular police personnel, not the pay of contractual constables. The Court also considered the financial burden on the State, but did not use this as a reason to deny the Home Guards their rightful dues. Instead, it struck a balance by restricting the arrears to the date of filing of the writ petition.

The court’s decision was based on the principle of equal pay for equal work, and the court’s interpretation of the Grah Rakshak judgment and the subsequent clarification. The court’s reasoning was logical and consistent with the principles of natural justice.

The court’s judgment was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the decision. The court’s decision was clear and unambiguous, and it is unlikely that there will be any future disputes on this issue.

“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.”

“However, we make it clear that the pay that is given to the petitioners will not be on a monthly basis, but will be calculated with reference to each day of work put in by the petitioners.”

Key Takeaways

• Home Guards are entitled to a Duty Call-up Allowance (DCA) equivalent to the minimum pay of regular police personnel in the state.
• The minimum pay includes basic pay, grade pay, dearness allowance, and washing allowance.
• The DCA should be calculated based on each day of work, not on a monthly basis.
• The State of Odisha must pay the arrears of DCA at Rs. 533 per day from June 1, 2018, within three months.
• Home Guards are entitled to periodical pay increases similar to police personnel.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Odisha to pay the arrears of DCA at Rs. 533 per day from June 1, 2018, within three months from the date of the judgment. The Court also directed that Home Guards be entitled to periodical pay increases similar to police personnel.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Home Guards are entitled to a Duty Call-up Allowance (DCA) equivalent to the minimum pay of regular police personnel in the state, and the DCA should be calculated based on each day of work. This judgment reinforces the principle of equal pay for equal work and clarifies the rights of Home Guards to fair compensation. The judgment also clarifies that contractual pay of constables is not the relevant benchmark for determining the minimum pay of Home Guards.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Prakash Kumar Jena vs. State of Odisha ensures that Home Guards receive a Duty Call-up Allowance (DCA) equivalent to the minimum pay of police personnel. This decision reinforces the principle of equal pay for equal work and provides much-needed financial relief to Home Guards in Odisha. The Court has struck a balance between the rights of Home Guards and the financial burden on the State by restricting the arrears to the date of filing of the writ petition.