Village Policemen Not Equal To Home Guards: Allahabad High Court Refuse To Interfere With Their Remuneration

The Allahabad High Court has held that Village Policemen are not equal to Policemen working in regular establishment and Home Guards and are thus not entitled to basic pay disbursed to policemen working in regular police force. It held that the duties of the Village Policemen, who were first appointed during British Raj era, have now become rudimentary and have been taken over by technological advancements.

Refusing to equate the post of Village Policemen and Home Guards and extend the benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Justice J.J. Munir held

“We do not think that the Gram Prahari or Village Policemen are in any way subjected to any kind of bondage or forced labour, taking advantage of their position, emanating from the lack of employment opportunities. For whatever work they do, which may, at some time be onerous, the remuneration of Rs.2500/- per month in the present day may be far on the lower side, but that does not make it arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

Case Background

Petitioners, 1518 in number, are Village Policemen, Chowkidars or Gram Prahari, as they were called from time to time and were appointed under North- Western Provinces Village and Road Police Act, 1873 which was repealed by the Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017. These village policemen are an extended network of the police force deployed in the remote villages in the British Era.

The Court observed that though with the passage of time and advancement of systems, the posts had become rudimentary, but duties were still being carried out on such posts. Since the petitioners had been working for decades, they claimed entitlement to the same minimum pay as that of policemen deployed in regular establishments in the State of UP. It was argued that there was violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Petitioners pleaded that they were receiving an honorarium and were discharging duties under the Sections 29 to 38 of Chapter IV of the Oudh Laws Act, 1876 and Paragraphs 89 to 92 of Chapter IX of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations. It was argued that under the Regulations, petitioners were treated as associates of the Police force and were carrying out vigilance work. They were also liable to punishment under the Regulations. However, they were only being paid an honorarium and not a proper pay.

It was argued that Rs. 2500/-, which was paid to them, is not enough in this day and age and the State was exploiting them by not paying proper wages. It was pleaded that the State was taking begar which is prohibited Article 23 of the Constitution. Petitioners relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others to claim pay parity with home guards also and argue that they were entitled to pay for all days of the month as against the claim of the respondent that the petitioners were working only 2 days a month.

It was argued that even though the Act of 1873 was revealed, the appoints already made were protected by the saving clause in the 2017 Amending Act. It was further argued that the appointments are being made under Oudh Laws Act and scheme of appointment in the 1873 Act and 1876 Act are similar. The powers to make service regulations for such appointees is also vested with the State Government, though no such service rules have been notified by the State Government.

Respondents submitted that the petitioners were only required to work 2 days a month, the honorarium paid to them along with other facilities provided was sufficient and proportionate to their duties and work. It was also submitted that the petitioners were at liberty to undertake any other work, like agriculture or business, while carrying out their duties.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that though the petitioners do not fall under “police”, they are described as “Village Chowkidars” and are a part of the Police Force under Paragraph 396 of the U.P. Police Regulations. Looking at the duties of the Village Chowkidars described in Paragraphs 89, 90, 245, 257, 260, 261, 267 and 273 of the Regulations, the Court observed that most of them were not very relevant in modern age.

The duty charts which were placed before the Court showed that when large scale deployment of police force is necessary, Village Policemen are deployed alongside the police force but do not have regular working hours. It observed the Village Policemen are not barred from taking other jobs.

“The most essential trapping of a whole-time employment is the continuous obligation of the employee, right through the calendar year everyday to discharge his duties. It does not leave the employee free to pursue alternative avocations. In fact, pursuing an alternative job for an employee, like an enrolled policemen, is a misconduct. It is not so for the Village Policemen.”

In Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the Home Guards appointed in the mentioned states were regular employees and if not, were they entitled to regularisation of their services. The Apex Court noted the origin of Home Gaurds to World War-II and held that they were a volunteer force at lower ranks but at higher ranks they are regular employees. Though regularisation of the Home Guards was not allowed, their pay was calculated to be the minimum pay payable to police personnel in that State.

“The Village Policemen were installed as ' the third eye' in the days gone by and associates of the Police. No doubt, in contemporary times, they too are detailed to duty, but not being part of a regular Force, even enrolled as part of a Force, like the Home Guards, the two cannot be equated. The terms of engagement of a Village Policeman, compared to a Home Guard, are far less taxing, impose much limited obligation and give much occupational freedom,” held Justice J.J. Munir.

The Court held that since most duties prescribed for the Village Policemen have become rudimentary, the occasional duties they perform alongside the Police force cannot be compared with the functions and duties of the Home Guards. It held that Home Guards are more involved with the force and have little to no time for alternate jobs as compared to Village Policemen. Accordingly, it was held that Village Policemen cannot be equated with Home Guards.

The Court held that back in the day the Village Policemen could be considered a 'third eye' of the Police force, but with technological advancement, their need has gone down. It held that if a new legislation is enacted specifically for them, it might lay down duties which would more in tune with the time and the State would offer them reasonable remuneration as per the new duties and working conditions.

Testing the remuneration of the Village Policemen on the principle of reasonablness, the Court held that the same may be on the lower side, but considering their work it was not arbitrary or unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

“Essentially, shorn of the remuneration for a particular kind of employment being patently arbitrary, discriminatory or a case of begar, where one or the other fundamental right is violated, it is not the province of the Court to issue directions to the Government to revise salaries or provide for better working conditions. These are essentially financial and policy matters, falling within the executive domain.”

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition without any relief to the petitioners. However, the Court directed the State to consider enacting a legislation to make the post of Village Policemen “effective and vibrant in contemporary times.”

Case Title: Lavkush Tiwari And 1486 Others v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 18956 of 2022]

Click Here To Read/Download Order