Rajasthan High Court Slams State For 'Plight' Of Home Guards; Ends Rotational System, Mandates Minimum Monthly Engagement With Benefits

In a landmark ruling, Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the home guard personnel of the State of Rajasthan, in their long drawn battle against the rotational system of engagement that restricted their maximum deployment period to 6-8 months, and no employment benefits.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that being a welfare State, it should work towards the betterment of the society, and not to make the poor poorer and rich richer. 

It said:

"The ostensible claim that they serve as “volunteers” is, in truth, a camouflage. The State not only deploys them on specific dates and occasions but also directs, instructs, and supervises their functions. Their role is not left to their volition; rather, they perform duties determined by the State. In return, they are paid remuneration for the work performed. Such an arrangement unmistakably bears the incidents and character of an employer–employee relationship. The plight of these so-called “volunteers” is both helpless and hapless...this Court is of the view that all Home Guards be deployed on a continuous basis, and it directs the State to take all necessary steps to implement this system forthwith, so as to safeguard both the interests of the Home Guards and the effective functioning of the State machinery."

The Court opined that it could not remain oblivious to the plight of the home guards, and harsh reality remained that their conditions had worsened with the passage of time.

“Regrettably, the treatment accorded to these registered Home Guards is not only inequitable but falls below even the standard extended to contract or part-time employees in the private sector, who at the very least are informed of their period of engagement and assured of wages for the work performed.”

While perusing the Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963, that regulates the home guards in Rajasthan, the Court highlighted that home guards were designated as “volunteers”. It was opined that 3 common elements of this designation were willingness, absence of compulsion and no expectation of remuneration.

Hence, based on this designation, while labour was being extracted from them, they were denied all protections.

The Court acknowledged that even though home guards could not be absorbed as regular employees of the State since the Statute itself designated them as volunteers, there was ample scope for their continuous employment on a daily basis, rather than the presently practiced rotational system. Addressing such a deployment model would address multiple issues.

In this background, the following directions were issued.

Directions to the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary:

• Every home guard to be engaged for a minimum of 22 days in a month, and may be called for additional days of service.

• Approximately 1000 home guards per district shall be attached with the police.

• State to examine and implement measures to address the situation of home guards not being able to access loans or other financial facilities since they do not get pay slips, nor have permanent source of income.

• The discretion of deployment currently vested in the Commandment of Home guards to be regulated to eliminate arbitrariness, discrimination or favoritism in allocation of duties. A fair and transparent mechanism to be evolved to ensure uniformity and objectivity.

The Home Guards Deployment System (HDMS) shall be utilized as a primary tool to minimize human intervention.

• As far as feasible, Rajasthan to adopt the model of home guard deployment and benefits implemented in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

• Dearness allowance to be extended to home guards, particularly in light of rising inflationary trends, so that they can subsist on bare minimum emoluments.

• A clear distinction to be maintained between the uniformed and non-uniformed home guards, merely for the sake of effective administration and orderly functioning, without any discrimination in the remuneration or minimum number of work days.

Non-uniformed personnel to be adjusted against the duties like that of Class IV employees, like work in offices, and other tasks of domestic or supportive nature. And uniformed personnel to be trained for field duties requiring discipline and coordination.

• Strength of female home guards to be suitably increased to ensure gender participation.

• Fresh registration drives to be conducted to increase the overall strength of home guards. A total of 50,000 registrations must be ensured so that each district has atleast 1,000 home guards deployed.

• A committee to be constituted at the district level to supervise the deployment of uniformed home guards.

Directions to the Finance Department:

• Adequate and timely budgetary allocation to be ensured for functioning, training, allowances and infrastructural needs of the home guards organisation.

Directions to the Information Technology and Home Guards Department:

• Ensuring that the Home Guards Deployment System is fully operational across the State by January 2026.
  

Furthermore, all the respondents were directed to submit a compliance report within a period of 3 months, and the Chief Secretary to ensure that the above directions were effectively implemented.

Looking at the object of the Act, the Court observed that India suffered from an acute shortage of personnel in the field of public protection, which made the presence of home guards, not only supplementary but essential.

“Home Guards represent the single largest voluntary force available to the State, and yet, despite their willingness to serve at modest remuneration, they are often relegated to a system of rotational duties where they remain idle for months, even though their services are essential on a daily basis.”

The Court took into account the facilities, allowances, and benefits extended by the State of UP to the home guards organisation, and held, “In this context, the question arises as to why the State of Rajasthan cannot extend similar benefits to its Home Guards. While it is neither feasible nor required that the States replicate the exact model of Uttar Pradesh, there is no apparent impediment to providing such benefits as are reasonably possible…”.

Hence, in this light, the afore-mentioned directions were issued.

Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of.

Title: Harishankar Acharya & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 347

Click Here To Read/Download Order