Gujarat High Court rejects ‘equal pay for equal work’ plea by home guards, rules duties differ from state police

Justice Maulik J Shelat said that the home guards do not have duties similar to the police force.

“Since the nature of duties and work of the home guards and the police personnel of the state are not equal, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied,” the high court said in its February 19 order. 

‘Emergency services, no continuity’

• It is indeed true that a member of the home guard should have the same powers, privileges and protection as an officer of police appointed under the relevant laws for the time being in force.
• However, it does not mean that the nature of duties and functions of home guards is akin to those of the state police force. 
• The court directs the state to consider and take appropriate steps for the revision of the rate of daily duty allowance paid to the home guards if they are getting paid for 30 days (a month), since the present daily allowance is less than the minimum paid to the state police personnel.
• This would allow the home guard to at least get the appropriate daily duty allowances as and when called for duty, which may be par with the minimum of the pay (per day) received by the state police force.
• The home guards are paid a daily allowance since there is no requirement to assign everyday duty to all home guards, but as and when the requirement arises or in an emergency, they are called and deputed to various places across the state.
• It is noted that members of the home guard would become in aid of the police force and, therefore, are under the control of officers of the police force. 
• It is found that the petitioners have been appointed as home guards by the authority concerned, and their services are to be engaged in case of emergency. 

• The relevant laws in this regard itself suggests that home guards are utilised as a voluntary organisation for emergency purposes; consequently, their services cannot be characterised as being continuing in nature. 
• The analysis of the relevant laws related to the functioning of the home guards points out that the nature of duties and functions of the home guards and the state police officers are neither similar nor equal. 
• Since the nature of duties and work of the home guards and the state police personnel are not equal, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied.
• The petitioners can very well pursue their vocation in their free time, unlike border wing home guards, whose services are required continuously and are treated as perennial in nature. 
• Also, the criteria set for recruiting border wing home guards are different from those of the ordinary home guards.
• The petitioners, home guards, are not entitled to claim the regular pay and other service and retirement benefits as claimed in their plea. 

‘Role similar to police force’

• Appearing for the home guards, advocate Akshat Khare submitted that as per the scheme of the Act, 1947, and the nature of duties discharged by the petitioners as home guards, they are entitled to receive similar pay and other benefits given by the respected authority to its state police force. 
• Khare pointed out that every home guard is required to discharge their duties like protection of persons, apart from other works like patrolling for the purpose of prevention of crime, and provide assistance to the ordinary police force. 
• They are also subjected to transport from one area to another. security of property, public safety and maintenance of essential services, which are similar to the work discharged by the state police force, but paid only a fixed daily allowance, instead of monthly pay. 
• He argued that since all the home guards are available for their services throughout the year, and considering the fact that the nature of their services and requirements is perennial in nature, they should get equal pay for equal work.

‘No equal work, no equal pay’

• On the contrary, the state’s counsel, Additional Government Pleader Forum Shah, argued that the home guard cannot be equated with a regular state police force and is not entitled to receive regular pay as claimed.

• He further submitted that the nature of the duties and works of home guards and state police forces are not equal and similar as claimed, as they do not have the power of investigation, arrest, or to receive complaints.
• Shah pointed out that the principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the present case, since home guards are not in a position to show that all the duties discharged by them are similar to those discharged by any state police force. 

Home guards, daily fixed allowance 

• All the petitioners were appointed by the authority concerned under the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947, after going through the respective physical and written tests.
• After joining, they also underwent training to perform their duties as members of the home guard.
• They were getting a fixed per-day allowance of Rs 304, which has been revised from time to time. They were not receiving any monthly salary like the police personnel of the state.
• The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to receive the regular pay and other service benefits, which were otherwise available to the state police forces, considering the nature of their duties and as working almost 27 days a month from long time.