Introduction:

In the case of Lavkush Tiwari and 1486 others v. The State of U.P. and 2 others (WRIT – A No. – 18956 of 2022), the Allahabad High Court addressed the issue of whether Village Policemen, also known as Gram Prahari or Chowkidars, are entitled to the same pay scales as regular police personnel or Home Guards.

Arguments:

The petitioners, numbering 1518, were appointed under the North-Western Provinces Village and Road Police Act, 1873, which was repealed in 2017. They argued that despite the repeal, their appointments were protected by the saving clause in the 2017 Amending Act and that they continued to perform duties under the Oudh Laws Act, 1876, and the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations. They contended that their roles involved vigilance work and that they were liable to punishment under the Regulations, yet they received only an honorarium of Rs. 2500 per month, which they claimed was insufficient and amounted to forced labour, violating Article 23 of the Constitution.

The petitioners sought parity with Home Guards, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which held that Home Guards should receive pay equivalent to regular police personnel. They argued that their duties were similar and that they should be entitled to the same benefits.

The State, however, contended that the petitioners were only required to work two days a month and that the honorarium paid was proportionate to their duties. They also noted that the petitioners were free to pursue other occupations, such as agriculture or business, alongside their duties as Village Policemen.

Judgement:

Justice J.J. Munir, presiding over the case, observed that while Village Policemen are described as associates of the police force under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, their duties have become rudimentary due to technological advancements. The Court noted that Village Policemen do not have regular working hours and are not barred from taking other jobs, distinguishing them from regular police personnel and Home Guards, who have more demanding and continuous obligations.

The Court held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not apply in this case, as the roles and responsibilities of Village Policemen differ significantly from those of regular police personnel and Home Guards. The Court concluded that the honorarium of Rs. 2500 per month, while low, was not arbitrary or unreasonable given the nature of the duties performed.

However, the Court acknowledged the need for legislative reform to redefine the role of Village Policemen in contemporary times. It suggested that the State consider enacting new legislation to make the post of Village Policemen more effective and vibrant, aligning their duties and remuneration with current needs and standards.