RAJESHBHAI MAHESHBHAI JANI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
- Case type
- SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION
- Decided on
- 03-03-2026
C/SCA/9072/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9072 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
RAJESHBHAI MAHESHBHAI JANI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA FOR MR HK THAKOR(6182) for Petitioner No.
1,2,3,4,5,6
MS DHRUTI PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 03/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Dhruti Pandya, learned
AGP, waives service of Rule for the State respondents.
1.1 With the consent of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
“ (A) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit and
allow this petition;
(B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents to treat the services of the petitioners upto 58
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:27:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/9072/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
years of age and their services are required to be treated
as the other Government employees working and further to
start the pay up regular salary like basic DA and other
allowances which are available to the petitioners as the
Govt. employees are receiving with all consequential
benefits and to pay up the arrears of their regular salary
from the date of their appointment till the final outcome of
this petition and further be pleased to quash and set aside
the circular dated 16/7/2020 and to implement the circular
dated 20/3/2020 and to implement the circular dated
11/9/1987 in toto.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the respondents to implement the circular dated 20/3/2020
relying upon which the judgment and order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and further be pleased to
stay the circular dated 16/7/2020 and to implement the
circular dated 11/9/1987 and further be pleased that the
petitioners may not be retrenched, terminated or not to
disturb their conditions of services and to start pay up the
salary regularly.”
3. Heard Mr.U.T.Mishra, learned advocate for the
petitioners and Ms.Pandya, learned AGP appearing for the
respondent-State.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS :
4. At the outset, Mr.Mishra, learned advocate for the
petitioners, would be candid in his submission that, so far as
the principal grievance of the petitioners raised in this
petition is concerned, it is squarely covered by the decision of
this Court in the case of Mukesh Arsibhal Karmur and
others vs. State of Gujarat and others , being Special Civil
Application No. 17518 of 2019 and allied matters ,
decided on 19.02.2026. Nonetheless, the duty allowance
which is received by the petitioners, i.e., Rs. 450/-, is less than
the minimum of the pay scale received by any feeder cadre
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:27:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/9072/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
police personnel of respondent-State.
4.1 Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, has drawn the attention of
this Court to the letter dated 20.03.2020 issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, placed on
record of this case, wherein it has been clearly stated that, as
per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Grah Rakshak,
Home Guards Welfare Association Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh and Others - (2015) 6 SCC 247 , the duty
allowance of Home Guards is required to be increased to the
minimum pay (basic pay + grade pay + DA + washing
allowance) to which police personnel are entitled. All States
have been requested to take necessary and immediate action
to implement the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court latest by April 30, 2020.
4.2 Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioners, would
submit that the daily allowance was increased from Rs.300/-
to Rs. 450/- by the State vide its Resolution dated 02.11.2022,
which does not even match with the minimum of the pay scale
as aforesaid. It is submitted that the State is required to abide
by the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court and
directives issued by the Government of India; and in law, it is
incumbent upon the State to pay daily allowance which would
meet with the minimum of the pay scale.
4.3 By making the above submissions, Mr. Mishra, learned
advocate for the petitioners urge this Court to allow the
present petition.
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:27:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/9072/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS :
5. Per contra, Ms. Dhruti Pandya, learned AGP, would state
that initially all Home Guards were receiving daily allowance
of Rs.200/-, which was increased in the year 2017 to Rs.300/-,
and later on, vide Resolution dated 02.11.2022, increased to
Rs. 450/-. The basis of granting such daily allowance would be
on the basis of the minimum of the pay scale prevailing at the
relevant point of time.
5.1 Learned AGP has cited one letter dated 12.04.2018
issued by the Office of the Director General, Civil Defence and
Home Guards, State of Gujarat, written to the Additional Chief
Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat, wherein a
request was made to increase the daily allowance from
Rs.300/- and the reference of the minimum of the pay scale as
per the 7th Pay Commission, given to Police Constables, is
referred to. Accordingly, the State has increased the daily
allowance to Rs. 450/ vide its said resolution dated
02.11.2022.
5.2 Ms.Pandya, learned AGP, would submit that, apart from
granting the said daily allowance, the State has decided to
give other benefits like medical facilities, support to Home
Guards in case of exigency including marriage and has also
created a fund in case any Home Guard dies. The State has
also increased messing allowance from Rs.100/- to Rs.200/-
vide its Resolution dated 17.09.2024; thereby, every Home
Guard will receive Rs.450/- daily allowance plus Rs.200/-
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:27:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/9072/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
messing allowance, in all Rs. 650/-.
5.3 Ms. Pandya, learned AGP, would further submit that the
State was in receipt of the letter dated 24.01.2024 issued by
the Home Department, Government of India, wherein it has
been stated that the Union of India has filed a review petition
before the Hon’ble Apex Court against its aforesaid decision
dated 11.03.2015 and its listing was awaited. Thus, the
submission of the petitioners is ill founded and this Court may
not entertain the present petition.
5.4 Ms. Pandya, learned AGP, would further submit that the
service of a Home Guard is voluntary; thereby, they can
engage themselves in any other activity. Unlike Police
personnel whose services are available 24 hours a day, all
seven days a week, the services of Home Guards are required
as and when necessary. Therefore, they cannot be allowed to
claim minimum of pay scale as prayed for.
5.5 By making the above submissions, Ms.Pandya, learned
AGP would urge this Court to dismiss the present petition.
5.6 No other or further submissions have been made by the
learned advocates for the respective parties. The letters and
resolutions which are referred by the learned AGP during the
course of the hearing are taken on record. Its copy is also
given to Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for petitioners.
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:27:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/9072/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
ANALYSIS:
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon appreciating all the submissions so
canvassed by respective learned advocates as recorded
hereinabove, I would like to first observe that the Hon’ble
Apex Court, vide its decision in the case of Grahak Rakshak,
Home Guards Welfare Association (supra) , has issued the
following directions:
22. In view of the discussion made above, no relief can be
“
granted to the appellants either regularization of services
or grant of regular appointments hence no interference is
called for against the judgments passed by the Himachal
Pradesh, Punjab and Delhi High Courts. However, taking
into consideration the fact that Home Guards are used
during the emergency and for other purposes and at the
time of their duty they are empowered with the power of
police personnel, we are of the view that the State
Government should pay them the duty allowance at
such rates, total of which 30 days (a month) comes
to minimum of the pay to which the police personnel
of State are entitled. It is expected that the State
Governments shall pass appropriate orders in terms
of aforesaid observation on an early date preferably
within three months .”
(emphasis supplied)
7. Apropos the aforesaid directions issued by the Hon’ble
Apex Court, the Director General, FSCD & HG, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India, vide its letter dated
20.03.2020, requested all States to take necessary and
immediate action to implement the aforesaid judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court latest by April 30, 2020. The said
communication dated 20.03.2020 is placed on record by the
petitioner (at pages 13 and 14). As per the aforesaid
communication, it has been clearly observed that, to
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:27:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/9072/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
implement the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is required
to increase the duty allowance of Home Guards to the
minimum pay (basic pay + grade pay + DA + washing
allowance) to which police personnel are entitled.
8. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that, vide
Resolution dated 02.11.2022, the State has increased the daily
allowance from Rs.300/- to Rs. 450/-. The basis of the increase
of such allowance appears to be the communication dated
12.04.2018 issued from the Office of the Director General,
Civil Defence and Home Guards, Gujarat State, to the
Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, State of
Gujarat, Gandhinagar. It appears that in the said
communication, the Director General has taken note of the
minimum of the pay received by Police Constables of the State
and as can be seen from the said letter, the minimum daily
salary of police personnel would be Rs.631/- (in year 2018).
Even while arriving at such a figure, the Director General
appears to have taken into account only basic salary, DA and
washing allowance, which were directed to be considered by
Hon’ble Apex Court in turn by the Government of India in its
aforesaid letter. After taking into account the said fact, the
State thought it fit to increase the daily allowance from
Rs.300/- to Rs.450/- only that too on 02.11.2022.
9. So far as the aspect of the increase in messing allowance
from Rs.100/- to Rs. 200/- is concerned, the learned AGP is not
in a position to show that along with Rs.450/-, the Home
Guard is receiving daily Rs.200/- as messing allowance. Mr.
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:27:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/9072/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioners, under the
instructions of his client, also makes a statement that such
allowance is not received along with the daily allowance of
Rs.450/-.
10. Be that as it may, the State cannot disregard the
directives issued by the Government of India or show
disrespect for the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court
unless they are modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court itself. In
my view, the State is required to increase the daily allowance
from Rs.450/- to an amount which would match with the
minimum of the pay which Police Personnel are currently
entitled to and or received by them. Upon being asked, the
learned AGP, under instructions from her officer, stated that
currently the minimum of the pay available to any Police
Constable is in the range from Rs.21,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per
month. If it is so, the Home Guard is receiving a lower daily
allowance and by no means can the State ignore such a vital
aspect.
11. It may be true that the State is providing some other
benefits and relief to Home Guards, including death
compensation, but that would not mean that the State should
exploit the services of the Home Guards by paying a lower
daily allowance.
12. At this stage, it would be pertinent to note that by the
letter dated 24.01.2024 issued by the Home Secretary,
Government of India, all States were informed that the
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:27:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/9072/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
Government has preferred a review petition against the
aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Upon inquiry
and checking the status of the said review petition, it has been
informed by the learned AGP that the review petition is
already dismissed. Yet, the learned AGP, under the
instructions of her officer, would state that the State of
Gujarat is contemplating to file an independent review
petition. According to my view, once the review petition filed
by the Union of India was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, there was no cogent reason available to the State not
to increase the daily allowance of Home Guards from Rs.450/-
to a respectable amount which would match with the
minimum of the pay of Police personnel; thereby, the
directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, followed by the
Union of India, can be complied with. Such an
13. Learned AGP, under the instruction, informed this Court
that and till the time, its review petition decided by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, the State would not like to reconsider to
increase the daily allowance of the Home Guards. This is
nothing but a tyranny of the State. As such, an adamant
approach on the part of the State not even ready to review the
daily allowance of Home Guards is nothing but an
arbitrariness on part of the State who otherwise considered as
‘model employer’. It would be apt to refer and to rely upon the
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of Union of India
Vs. International Trading Company reported in (2003) 5
SCC 437 , wherein held thus
:
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:27:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/9072/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
“15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of
the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or
rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms
of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly
and should not give the impression that it was so done
arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article
14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its
validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity
of the State is an accepted tenet . The basic requirement of
Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-
arbitrariness in essence and substance is the
heartbeat of fair play . Actions are amenable, in the
panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State
must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for
any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and
concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than
precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action
is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts
and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious
test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is
any discernible principle emerging from the impugned
action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of
reasonableness .
16. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an
act and there is no impediment in adopting the
procedure, the deviation to act in a different manner
which does not disclose any discernible principle which
is reasonable itself shall be labelled as arbitrary . Every
State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an
act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary.”
(Emphasis supplied)
14. So far as the submission of the learned AGP that the
service of a Home Guard is voluntary, unlike the services
tendered by Police personnel, is concerned, such argument
would not deter this Court from holding that, when the
Hon’ble Apex Court has already issued said direction, such an
argument cannot be appreciated by this Court.
15. Thus, the upshot of the foregoing observations,
discussion, and reasons, the stance of the State not ready to
increase daily allowance of Home Guards is nothing but an
arbitrary decision which violates Article 14 of the Constitution
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:27:55 IST 2026
C/SCA/9072/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
of India. This Court is not all impressed with any submission
of learned AGP and cannot not allow the State to disrespect
the direction issued by Hon’ble Apex Court following by
directives issued by the Government of India.
16. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent-State is hereby
directed to increase the daily allowance of Home Guards from
Rs.450/- to the minimum of the pay received by Police
personnel of the respondent-State as on date. Such decision
shall be taken by the competent authority of the State within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order and appropriate order/resolution may be passed by the
State. While passing such order/resolution, the State
authorities must keep in mind the direction issued by Hon’ble
Apex Court, as aforesaid and accordingly fixed daily
allowance.
17. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the present petition
is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made
absolute, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:27:55 IST 2026