Introduction:
In Rajeshbhai Maheshbhai Jani & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (R/Special Civil Application No. 9072 of 2020), the Gujarat High Court addressed an important issue concerning the remuneration and dignity of Home Guards who serve in support of law enforcement agencies. The petition was filed by several Home Guards working in the State of Gujarat who approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking parity in duty allowance with police personnel. They contended that despite clear directions from the Supreme Court and communications issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the State Government continued to pay them a daily allowance of ₹450, which was far below the minimum pay scale received by police constables. The matter was heard by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Maulik J. Shelat. The Court examined whether the State Government could continue paying Home Guards a lower allowance despite the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in Grahak Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh. In that landmark decision, the Supreme Court had directed that the total duty allowance paid to Home Guards for a month should at least equal the minimum pay received by police personnel. The High Court noted that Home Guards play a vital role in maintaining law and order during emergencies and are often entrusted with powers similar to those exercised by police personnel while on duty. Despite this, the State of Gujarat had only increased the daily allowance from ₹300 to ₹450 in 2022, which still did not comply with the Supreme Court’s directive. The Court ultimately held that the State cannot disregard binding judicial directions and must revise the allowance structure accordingly. Consequently, the High Court directed the State Government to increase the daily duty allowance of Home Guards to match the minimum pay received by police personnel in the State.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, represented by Advocate U.T. Mishra appearing for Advocate H.K. Thakor, argued that the issue raised in the petition was already settled by judicial precedent and therefore required immediate implementation by the State Government. They contended that the Supreme Court had clearly directed in Grahak Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh that Home Guards should receive duty allowance in such a manner that their monthly earnings would at least equal the minimum pay received by police personnel. The petitioners pointed out that the Supreme Court recognized the nature of the duties performed by Home Guards, which often involve maintaining law and order, assisting police during emergencies, and performing functions similar to those of police personnel. Therefore, the Court held that paying them significantly lower allowances would be unjust and inconsistent with the principle of fairness. The petitioners further relied on a communication issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 20 March 2020. In this communication, the Union Government requested all States and Union Territories to implement the Supreme Court’s judgment and revise the duty allowance of Home Guards accordingly. The petitioners submitted that the Union Government had even set a timeline for implementing the directive, requesting States to comply with it by 30 April 2020. However, the State of Gujarat had not implemented the directive. Instead, the State merely increased the daily allowance of Home Guards from ₹300 to ₹450 through a resolution dated 2 November 2022. According to the petitioners, this increment was insufficient because it still did not match the minimum pay scale applicable to police personnel. The petitioners emphasized that the minimum pay of police personnel includes several components such as basic pay, grade pay, dearness allowance, and washing allowance. When compared with this pay structure, the allowance of ₹450 per day paid to Home Guards was significantly lower. The petitioners also relied on a recent judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Mukesh Arsibhal Karmur v. State of Gujarat, delivered in February 2026, where similar issues had been addressed and the Court had recognized the rights of Home Guards in relation to duty allowance. They argued that the State Government’s continued refusal to implement the Supreme Court’s directives amounted to arbitrary and unconstitutional action. The petitioners therefore requested the High Court to direct the State Government to revise the daily duty allowance of Home Guards so that it matches the minimum pay scale of police personnel. They also sought parity in other allowances and benefits applicable to government employees performing similar duties.
Arguments on Behalf of the State Government:
The State Government, represented by Assistant Government Pleader Dhruti Pandya, opposed the petition and defended the existing allowance structure. The State argued that it had already taken several steps over the years to improve the financial condition of Home Guards. According to the State, the daily allowance had been increased from ₹200 to ₹300 in 2017 and further to ₹450 in 2022. These increments, the State argued, reflected its continuous efforts to support Home Guards. The State further submitted that Home Guards are volunteers who provide services on a part-time basis and are not regular government employees like police personnel. Their duties are not continuous and they are engaged only when their services are required. Therefore, the State contended that Home Guards cannot claim complete parity with police personnel in terms of salary and benefits. The State also pointed out that several additional benefits had been introduced for Home Guards. These included medical assistance schemes, compensation funds in case of death while on duty, and enhanced messing allowances. According to the State, these benefits demonstrated that the Government had taken meaningful steps to support the welfare of Home Guards. Another important argument advanced by the State was that the Union Government had filed a review petition before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment concerning Home Guards’ duty allowance. The State informed the High Court that the review petition was pending and its listing was awaited. Therefore, the State had adopted a cautious approach and had not yet fully revised the allowance structure. The State argued that until the Supreme Court decided the review petition, it would be premature to implement any significant changes in the allowance structure.
Court’s Analysis:
After hearing the submissions made by both sides, the Gujarat High Court carefully examined the legal and constitutional issues involved. The Court observed that the central question was whether the State Government could continue paying Home Guards a daily allowance that did not comply with the directives issued by the Supreme Court. Justice Maulik J. Shelat noted that the Supreme Court in Grahak Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh had clearly recognized the important role played by Home Guards in maintaining law and order. The Supreme Court had observed that Home Guards are often deployed during emergencies and are entrusted with powers similar to those exercised by police personnel. In view of these responsibilities, the Supreme Court had directed that the duty allowance paid to Home Guards should be structured in such a way that their monthly earnings would at least match the minimum pay received by police personnel. The High Court emphasized that the directions issued by the Supreme Court are binding on all authorities in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore, the State Government cannot ignore or disregard such directions unless they are modified or set aside by the Supreme Court itself. The Court also examined the communication issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 20 March 2020. This communication had requested all States to implement the Supreme Court’s judgment and revise the allowance structure of Home Guards accordingly. The High Court noted that despite this communication, the State of Gujarat had only increased the daily allowance to ₹450 in 2022 without ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive. The Court rejected the State’s argument that additional benefits such as medical assistance and compensation schemes justified the lower allowance. Justice Shelat observed that providing such benefits does not entitle the State to exploit the services of Home Guards by paying them significantly lower allowances than those mandated by the Supreme Court. The Court also criticized the State’s reliance on the pending review petition. It noted that the Union Government’s review petition had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the State’s insistence on waiting before revising the allowance structure was unjustified. The Court described this approach as an “adamant stance” that reflected arbitrary state action.
Court’s Judgment:
In its final judgment, the Gujarat High Court held that the State Government’s refusal to revise the duty allowance of Home Guards in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions amounted to arbitrary action violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the State cannot disregard directives issued by the Government of India or binding judgments of the Supreme Court. Justice Shelat observed that Home Guards play an important role in supporting law enforcement agencies and ensuring public safety during emergencies. Therefore, they deserve fair and reasonable compensation for the services they render. The Court concluded that the daily allowance of ₹450 paid to Home Guards was inadequate and inconsistent with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the petition and directed the State Government to revise the daily allowance of Home Guards so that it matches the minimum pay received by police personnel in the State. The judgment reinforced the constitutional principle that State authorities must comply with binding judicial decisions and cannot evade their implementation through administrative inaction.