Home Guards Rendering Long Non-Rotational Service Not 'Volunteers' Anymore, Disheartening To See Exploitation By State: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court ruled that the home guards who were on non-rotational duty ever since their deployment without any break could not be considered as “volunteers” since the extraordinary longevity of their service had transformed their role from voluntary to de facto employment with the State.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga further opined that despite relying so heavily on their services, the State was exploiting them as a cost-effective labour without offering commensurate protections, remunerations, job security or post-retiral benefits. Such a treatment was not only unfair but also unsustainable.

“non-rotational Home Guards working on Group-C and D posts, have been trapped and masked under the false label of “volunteers.” In reality, they are workers exploited for years without proper recognition or rights. Some have served continuously for up to 20 years, a span that shatters any illusion of voluntary service, deemingly making them employees, not disposable volunteers.”

While leaving the merits of the case to an expert committee that was already in place to deal with the matter pursuant to an earlier order of the Court in the case of Hari Shankar Acharya & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., the Court laid down the following guidelines to be borne in mind by the committee while taking a decision:

1. Continuous Deployment changed the nature of employment- Home guards who had served for extended periods like 10-20 years on a regular basis had to be either absorbed into the regular establishments or be accorded benefit of bonus marks with age relaxations.
2. Equal Pay for Equal Work to be ensured- Home guards performing the same duties, under same conditions, as regular counter parts in Group C and D service, to be provided equal pay and benefits.
3. Duty of government to monitor implementation of scheme as envisaged- When the Home Guard scheme was voluntary, it was government's duty to ensure its proper implementation in the manner envisaged. Failing to do the same or making it non-voluntary could not be a defense later on to deny the rights of the home guards.
4. Technical defence could not defeat substantive rights- Governments should not use procedural or technical defenses to deny legitimate benefits to home guards whose factual conditions established regular employment relationships.
5. Recognition of fundamental rights in service matters- Constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16 applied to home guards too, and any discrimination between similarly situated employees was unconstitutional.
6. Accountability of Deployment Authorities- Operational authorities exercising control over deployed home guards must take responsibility for consequences of continuous deployment, including recognition resulting in employment rights.

“It is rather disheartening that Home Guards are treated worse than casual laborers. Other states have recognized and uplifted their home guards; Rajasthan's continued neglect is indefensible. Immediate reforms are a matter of policy to be framed by the State and are a legal imperative. Until State ends this charade, these home guards will remain not volunteers but mere victims!”

The Court was hearing a class action petition filed by the Secretary of Home Guards Samanvay Samiti, with the grievance that in light of uninterrupted services of 5-20 years of the home guards, the terminology of “volunteers” was a mere façade.

It was prayed that their status be recognized in accordance with ground realities of them enduring regular service, by framing guidelines for their betterment/regularization/upgradation, and secondly, it was sought that the home guards be given reservation in the recruitments for Group C and D in Rajasthan.

It was argued that the home guards were performing various kinds of duties which were more than what was regularly performed by Group-D/MTS/Group C & D employees.

After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of State of West Bengal v Pantha Chatterjee, in which a similar matter was dealt with when a group of part-time Border Wing home guards (BWHGs) had claimed discrimination against BSF personnel despite performing identical duties.

The Apex Court had upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court wherein BWHGs were considered to be under a master-servant relationship with the State of West Bengal making them entitled to same pay scales, benefits and service conditions to those of their permanent counterparts. The Supreme Court had opined that in light of their continuous service without break, to treat them as mere volunteers was arbitrary and unjust.

In this background, while perusing the records of the present case, the Court stated that,

“The essence of volunteerism lies in the voluntary offering of time and effort without any long-term obligation. Yet, this definition is being defied qua the non-rotational Home Guards in every conceivable way. Many home guards have served for decades without respite. This extraordinary longevity and continuity of service transform their role from one of voluntary participation into a de facto employment relationship with the State.”

The Court also made note of the huge disparities in the working conditions of the home guards and the government employees and held that the State was exploiting the former. In this light, it was concluded that the prayers of the petitioner did not seem extravagant but reasonable to honour the years of the service of the home guards.

Taking note of the expert committee constituted pursuant to the division bench decision of the Court, and the similar nature of reliefs claimed, the Court handed over the claims in the current petition to the committee.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with the laying down of the guidelines for the benefit of the committee.

Title: Kuldeep Parasar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 148

Click Here To Read/Download Order