Introduction:

In the landmark judgment titled Kuldeep Parasar v. State of Rajasthan, cited as 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 148, the Rajasthan High Court has taken a significant stand on the rights of long-serving Home Guards. The case was initiated through a class action petition by the Secretary of Home Guards Samanvay Samiti, seeking the recognition and regularisation of Home Guards in Rajasthan who have rendered uninterrupted service ranging from 5 to 20 years.

Arguments:

The petitioners argued that the term “volunteers” had been used as a façade to disguise a continuous employer-employee relationship, while Home Guards were engaged on a full-time basis in Group-C and D duties akin to regular employees. Their duties went beyond the scope of what volunteers should typically perform and matched, if not exceeded, those of permanent employees. They demanded that their rights be recognised, that regularisation or upgradation mechanisms be adopted, and that they be granted reservation in state recruitments. In support of their argument, they relied on the Supreme Court precedent in State of West Bengal v. Pantha Chatterjee, where the Court recognised a de facto employment relationship for similarly situated Border Wing Home Guards (BWHGS). On the other hand, the State attempted to justify the classification of the Home Guards as volunteers, arguing that the statutory scheme was never intended for such service to be regularised employment and tried to rely on procedural and technical defences such as the absence of formal appointment orders. The State also cited financial and administrative limitations in accommodating such a large workforce as permanent employees.

Judgement:

However, the bench of Justice Arun Monga found such reasoning inadequate in light of the continuous, full-time, and non-rotational nature of the duties performed by these Home Guards over decades. The Court opined that the State had been exploiting this workforce as cost-effective labour without providing them the necessary protections, compensation, or retirement benefits. It acknowledged the massive disparity in treatment, terming the Home Guards as being worse off than casual labourers. Recognising the extraordinary longevity of their deployment, the Court ruled that these Home Guards had effectively transitioned into de facto employees. The Court, however, refrained from granting immediate relief and instead entrusted the matter to an expert committee constituted under the earlier decision in Hari Shankar Acharya & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., while laying down detailed guidelines for the committee to follow. The Court emphasised that constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 16 must be applied, equal pay for equal work ensured, and the duty of the government to monitor and implement the Home Guard scheme in the manner it was initially envisaged reaffirmed. Furthermore, it condemned the use of technical defences to deny the substantive rights of the petitioners and insisted on accountability from the deployment authorities. The Court concluded by noting the unjust neglect of the Home Guards by Rajasthan in contrast to other states, calling immediate reforms a legal imperative rather than a policy choice. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with strong directions for corrective and welfare-oriented action.