PRAKASH KUMAR JENA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.

490                      [2023]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    5 S.C.R. 490                [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A                     PRAKASH KUMAR JENA & ORS.
                                        v.
                       THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 8836 of 2022)
B
                                MARCH 17, 2023
                [M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
             Service Law – Home Guards – Disbursal of salary – Writ
      petition was filed by original writ petitioners, who were working as
C     Home Guards for more than 10 to 15 years, seeking disbursal of
      their salary as per direction of the Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak,
      Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and
      others – Division Bench of the High Court restricted the payment at
      the rate of Rs.533/- per day to the Home Guards from January,
D     2020, instead of 10.11.2016, as directed by the Single Judge of the
      High Court – On appeal, held: The State cannot be permitted to
      submit that as contractual Constables appointed under Rule 2013
      are being paid a fixed lump sum amount at the entry level, the Home
      Guards after rendering 10 to 15 years of service also shall be entitled
      to the same fixed salary and the aforesaid stand would be just
E     contrary to the directions issued by Supreme Court in the case of
      Grah Rakshak – The High Court has rightly directed to pay the DCA
      at Rs.533 per day – So far as restricting the benefit of DCA at
      Rs.533/- per day from January, 2020 is concerned, no cogent
      reasons were assigned by the Division Bench of the High Court to
F     restrict the benefit of Rs.533/- per day from January, 2020 instead
      of 10.11.2016 – Director General had recommended on 10.11.2016
      to pay DCA at Rs.533/- per day which was in consonance with the
      decision of Supreme Court in the case of Grah Rakshak – Taking
      into consideration the huge financial burden on the State, the benefit
      of DCA at Rs.533/- per day would be from the date of filing of the
G     writ petition before the Single Judge i.e. from 01.06.2018 – Odisha
      Group-C & Group-D (Contractual Appointment) Rules 2013.
            Disposing of the appeals, the Court
           HELD: 1. The State of Orissa cannot be permitted to now
H     submit that as contractual Constables appointed under Odisha
                                       490
 PRAKASH KUMAR JENA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF ODISHA                     491
                    & ORS.

Group-C & Group-D (Contractual Appointment) Rules 2013 are            A
being paid a fixed lump sum amount at the entry level, the Home
Guards after rendering 10 to 15 years of service also shall be
entitled to the same fixed salary. The aforesaid stand would be
just contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the case of
Grah Rakshak and the subsequent further clarificatory order.
                                                                      B
Under the circumstances, the High Court has rightly directed to
pay the DCA at Rs.533/- per day. As such the Court is in complete
agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as
well as the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, the
appeals preferred by the State to that extent deserve dismissal.
[Para 6.3][501-E-G]                                                   C
       2. Now, so far as the appeals preferred by the original writ
petitioners against the impugned judgment and order passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court restricting the benefit of
DCA at Rs.533/- per day from January, 2020, is concerned, at the
outset it is required to be noted that no cogent reasons have         D
been assigned by the Division Bench of the High Court to restrict
the benefit of Rs.533/- per day from January, 2020 instead of
10.11.2016. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that this
Court as such delivered judgment in the case of Grah Rakshak
as far back in the month of March, 2015 and a further clarificatory   E
order was passed on 04.05.2016. Even thereafter the Director
General recommended on 10.11.2016 to pay DCA at Rs.533/-
per day which was in consonance with the decision of this Court
in the case of Grah Rakshak and the subsequent clarificatory order
dated 04.05.2016. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High
Court is not justified in restricting the benefit of the DCA at       F
Rs.533/- per day from January, 2020. However, at the same time
considering the fact that there were 17765 Home Guards working
and even as observed by the Commander General / Director
General in its recommendation dated 10.11.2016, there will be a
financial implication of Rs.51,78,775/- on the Government per         G
day towards payment of DCA at Rs.293/- per day (Rs.533 –
Rs.240) and the annual financial implication would come to Rs.189
Crores if they are engaged 365 days a year and taking into
consideration such a huge financial burden, the court directs to
                                                                      H
492            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     restrict the benefit of DCA at Rs.533/- per day from the date of
      filing of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge which
      would be from 01.06.2018. [Para 7][501-G-H; 502-A-D]
            Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs.
            State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2015) 6 SCC
B           247: [2015] 2 SCR 800 - referred to.
                              Case Law Reference
      [2015] 2 SCR 800                 referred to              Para 2.1
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8836
C     of 2022.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 19.08.2020 of the High Court
      of Orissa at Cuttack in WA No. 319 of 2020.
            WITH

D           C.A. Nos. 8837 and 8838 of 2022.
            Sumit Goel, Tanuj Agarwal, Ms. Sreeparna Basak for M/s Parekh
      & Co., Sibo Sankar Mishra, Shovan Mishra, Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Shikhar
      Srivastava, Ms. Prerna Singh, Debabrata Dash, Niranjan Sahu, Apoorva
      Sharma, Advs. for the appearing parties.
E           Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, R. Vinay Nandan Reddy, Advs. for the
      Applicant.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
F           1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at
      Cuttack in W.A. No.319 of 2020, the original writ petitioners working as
      Home Guards and the State of Orissa both have preferred the present
      appeals.
G           2. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP No.3906 of 2022 has been filed
      by the State of Orissa and others challenging the order passed by the
      High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No.19556 of 2020 by which
      the High Court has disposed of the said writ petition in terms of the
      judgment and order passed in W.A. No.319 of 2020 which is the subject
H
 PRAKASH KUMAR JENA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF ODISHA                              493
             & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

matter of C.A.No.8836 of 2022. Therefore, C.A. No.8836 of 2022 arising         A
out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in
W.A. No.319 of 2020 is treated as lead matter and the facts arising out
of the said W.A.No.319 of 2020 are narrated, which are as under: -
        2.1 That the original writ petitioners all are / were working as
Home Guards for more than 10 to 15 years under the Home Department             B
of the State of Orissa. After rendering 10 to 15 years of service, they
filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge for a direction to
the State to disburse their salary as per the direction of this Court in the
case of Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 247 and
                                                                               C
the subsequent order / clarificatory order dated 04.05.2016 passed in
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 699-700 of 2015, by which this Court clarified
its earlier order. A relief was also sought to give them benefit of 7 th Pay
Commission from the date the same had been given to their counterparts
of the other States. The learned Single Judge following the decision of
this Court in the case of Grah Rakshak (supra) allowed the said writ           D
petition directing the State Government to implement the
recommendations of the Director General (Fire Service, Home Guards,
Civil Defense), Orissa in respect of the Home Guards in the State of
Orissa as per the decision of this Court in the case of Grah Rakshak
(supra). The learned Single Judge also directed the State to take into
                                                                               E
account the increase in the pay of the Constables on application of the
7th Pay Commission’s report. That it is required to be noted that earlier
the Director General of Police, Orissa, recommended payment at the
minimum sum of Rs.533/- per day taking into consideration the
remuneration available to the Constables in the State in the lowest rank
in the Police personnel since 10.11.2016. Therefore, the learned Single        F
Judge while granting one month time to the State Government to
implement the said recommendation directed that the Home Guards in
the State of Orissa pending decision under final fitment be paid
provisionally at the minimum Rs.500/- from January, 2020, subject to the
final decision of the Government of Orissa on implementation of the            G
recommendation of the Director General.
      2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8148 of 2020, the State of
Orissa and others preferred W.A. No. 319 of 2020. By the impugned
judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court by and large
                                                                               H
494            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     affirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
      However, The High Court restricted the payment at the rate of Rs.533/
      - per day to the Home Guards from January, 2020, instead of 10.11.2016,
      as directed by the learned Single Judge.
            2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
B     and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A.No.319
      of 2020, the original writ petitioners – Home Guards as well as the State
      of Orissa have preferred the present appeals.
             3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Orissa has
      vehemently submitted that the High Court has materially erred in directing
C     the State to pay Rs.533/- per day as Duty Call-up Allowance (hereinafter
      referred to as “DCA”) to the Home Guards working in the State and the
      same would be much more than the amount being paid to the Constables
      at the entry level recruited as per Odisha Group-C & Group-D
      (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the
D     Rule, 2013).
             3.1 It is submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate
      that earlier as per the 6th Pay Commission entitlement, the Constables at
      the entry level recruited as per Rule 2013 used to get Rs.7,200/- per
      month at entry level. Therefore, Home Guards in the State of Orissa
E     were entitled to get Rs.240/- per day as Daily Pay allowance/ Duty
      Call-up Allowance. It is submitted that however, after the 7 th Pay
      Commission, the pay of Police Constable at entry level was revised to a
      consolidated remuneration of Rs.9,000/- per month as against Rs.7,200/-
      per month. It is submitted that therefore and accordingly, the payment to
F     the Home Guards was also revised to Rs.300/- per day from Rs.240/-
      per day apart from Rs.25/- per month towards Washing Allowance. It is
      submitted that therefore the State of Orissa as such complied the
      judgment of this Court in the case of Grah Rakshak (supra).
             3.2 It is further submitted that even the High Court has materially
G     erred in taking into consideration the recommendations made by the
      Director General, as apart from the fact that the recommendations made
      by the Director General were not binding on the State Government, the
      Director General had also not taken into consideration the remuneration
      of the Constables at entry level appointed under Rule 2013. It is submitted
      that rather the recommendations are based on the comparative daily
H
 PRAKASH KUMAR JENA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF ODISHA                              495
             & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

allowances of the Home Guards paid by other States in the country. It is       A
submitted that the facts peculiar to the State of Orissa has not at all been
taken into consideration by the Director General in the recommendations.
It is submitted that therefore the High Court has failed in error by solely
relying upon the recommendations of the Director General.
       3.3 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf      B
of the State that if the Home Guards in the State are paid daily pay
allowance / Duty Call-up Allowance at the rate of Rs.533/- per day as
directed by the High Court, it would create an anomalous situation because
the Constables at entry level as per 7th Pay Commission would get only
Rs.9,000/- per month, whereas at the rate of Rs.533/- per day, the Home        C
Guards would get more than Rs.15,000/- per month. It is submitted that
therefore same would be against the judgment of this Court in the case
of Grah Rakshak (supra).
       3.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State that the High Court has also failed to appreciate that     D
presently 16894 numbers of Home Guards are working in the State and
therefore if the Home Guards working in the State are paid salary as per
the directions issued by the learned Single Judge modified by the Division
Bench, in that case, a huge financial burden would be fastened upon the
State.
                                                                               E
      3.5 With above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals
preferred by the State.
       4. While opposing the present appeals preferred by the State, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective Home Guards/
original writ petitioners / applicants have vehemently submitted that the      F
direction issued by the learned Single Judge affirmed by the Division
Bench of the High Court directing the State to pay DCA at Rs.533/- per
day is absolutely in consonance with the judgment of this Court in the
case of Grah Rakshak (supra) and the subsequent clarificatory order.
       4.1 It is submitted that this Court in the case of Grah Rakshak         G
(supra) though rejected the prayer of the Home Guards for regularization
of their services or for grant of regular appointments, however, directed
all the State Governments to pay them the DCA at such rate total of 30
days (one month) comes to minimum of the pay to which the Police
personnel of the State are entitled. It is further submitted that thereafter   H
496                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     dispute arose whether same includes DA or not and therefore this Court
      clarified that the payment of minimum of the pay would mean basic pay
      + grade pay + dearness allowance + washing allowance. It is submitted
      that this Court also further clarified that the pay that is given to the
      Home Guards will not be on a monthly basis but will be calculated with
      reference to each day of work put in by the Home Guards.
B
             4.2 It is submitted that thereafter the Government of India, Ministry
      of Home Affairs as early as on 16.09.2016 requested all the Chief
      Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to issue necessary
      directions for compliance of the aforesaid judgment. It is submitted that
      thereafter many States have complied with the directions issued by this
C
      Court in the case of Grah Rakshak (supra) and the clarificatory order
      except the State of Orissa. It is submitted that even so far as the State
      of Orissa is concerned, the Director General in the year 2016 itself
      recommended to pay a minimum of Rs.533/- per day to the Home Guards
      in the State of Orissa from 10.11.2016 in light of the judgment of this
D     Court in the case of Grah Rakshak (supra) and the clarificatory order.
           4.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective Home
      Guards have prayed to consider the following facts:
            (i)      This Hon’ble Court had in the judgment dated 11.03.2015
                     passed in the matter of Grah Rakshak, Home Guards
E
                     Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh directed
                     payment of such DCA preferably within three months;
            (ii)     The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs as early
                     as on 16.09.2016 had requested the Chief Secretaries of all
F                    States and Union Territories to issue necessary directions
                     for compliance of the aforesaid judgment;
            (iii)    The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs wrote
                     letter dated 5.10.2016 to the Secretary, Home Department,
                     Government of Orissa for taking appropriate action regarding
G                    the complaint of Petitioner No.1 about disobedience of the
                     order passed by this Hon’ble Court regarding payment of
                     salary to Home Guards;
            (iv)     the Directorate General (Fire Service, Home Guards, Civil
                     Defence) Odisha, in light of the judgment dated 11.03.2015
H                    passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Grah
 PRAKASH KUMAR JENA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF ODISHA                               497
             & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

              Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of             A
              Himachal Pradesh and judgment dated 04.05.2016 passed
              in Contempt Petition (C) No.699-700 of 2015, issued a
              recommendation to Principal Secretary to Government of
              Odisha, Home Department i.e. Respondent No.2 to pay a
              minimum of Rs.533/- per day to the Petitioners and other
                                                                                B
              Home Guards in the State of Odisha from 10.11.2016, after
              taking into consideration the remuneration paid to the
              Constables in the State of Odisha in the lowest rank in the
              police personnel.
      (v)     The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government
                                                                                C
              of India issued a letter dated 31.10.2017 to the Chief Minister
              of Odisha regarding the receipt of a petition in connection
              with implementation of judgment dated 04.05.2016 passed
              by this Hon’ble Court in Contempt Petition (c) No.699-700
              of 2015 regarding payment of Home Guards’ salary, for
              appropriate action.                                               D
      (vi)    The MHA directed the Chief Secretary of all the States
              including the State of Odisha on 11.04.2018 to implement
              the judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court in the matter
              of Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs.
              State of Himachal Pradesh and Contempt Petition (c)               E
              No.699-700 of 2015, for enhancing the duty allowance of
              Home Guards latest by 15.09.2018.
      (vii)   Writ petition was filed by the petitioners on 09.05.2018.
       4.4 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf       F
of original writ petitioners/ applicants/ Home Guards that the submission
on behalf of the State that the Constables in the State at the entry level
recruited as per Rule 2013 were getting Rs.7,200/- per month as per 6th
Pay Commission and thereafter at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month after
the 7th Pay Commission recommendations and therefore, the Home
Guards shall be entitled to the same consolidated remuneration of               G
Rs.9,000/- per month is concerned, it is submitted that said submission is
absolutely misplaced. It is submitted that as per Rule 2013, the Constables
are appointed initially on contractual basis and thereafter after few years
of service, they are made permanent. It is submitted that in the present
case, the prayer of Home Guards for regular appointment and/or
                                                                                H
498            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     regularization of their services have been declined. It is submitted that
      the question is what the Constables are getting as minimum of the pay-
      scale/pay. It is submitted that all the aforesaid aspects were as such
      dealt with and considered by the Director General in his recommendation
      dated 10.11.2016.
B            4.5 It is submitted that even otherwise except the State of Orissa,
      all other States have complied with the directions issued by this Court in
      the case of Grah Rakshak (supra). It is submitted that therefore all
      the Home Guards working in the State of Orissa are entitled to similar
      benefits which are being paid to the Home Guards in other States.
C            4.6 Now so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by
      the Division Bench of the High Court restricting the benefits of the DCA
      at Rs.533/- per day from January, 2020, is concerned, learned counsel
      appearing for the respective original writ petitioners – Home Guards
      have vehemently submitted that as such no cogent reasons have been
D     given by the Division Bench of the High Court restricting the said benefits
      from January, 2020 only.
              4.7 It is submitted that as such this Court passed the judgment
      and order in the case of Grah Rakshak (supra) in the year 2015.
      Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs as early
E     as on 16.09.2016 requested the Chief Secretaries of all the States and
      Union Territories to issue necessary directions for compliance of the
      judgment and order of this Court in the case of Grah Rakshak (supra).
      It is submitted that thereafter the Government of India, Ministry of Home
      Affairs wrote letter dated 05.10.2016 to the Secretary, Home
      Department, Government of Orissa for taking appropriate action
F
      regarding the complaint of the Home Guards about disobedience of the
      order passed by this Court regarding payment of salary to Home Guards.
      It is submitted that not only then even thereafter the Director General
      vide his recommendation dated 10.11.2016 recommended to pay DCA
      at Rs.533/- per day with effect from 10.11.2016. It is submitted that
G     therefore the learned Single Judge was justified in directing to pay DCA
      at Rs.533/- per day with effect from 10.11.2016.
            4.8 It is submitted that therefore the Division Bench of the High
      Court has materially erred in restricting the benefit of DCA at Rs.533/-
      per day from January, 2020 only.
H
 PRAKASH KUMAR JENA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF ODISHA                           499
             & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      4.9 By making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the          A
appeals preferred by the State and to allow the appeals preferred by the
Home Guards.
      5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respective parties at length.
                                                                            B
       6. At the outset, the issue whether the Home Guards working in
the State are entitled to DCA/Duty Allowance as per minimum of the
pay to which the Police personnel of the State are entitled is not res
integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Grah Rakshak
(supra). While declining to grant the relief either for regularization of
service or for grant of regular appointments, this Court in paragraph-39    C
directed as under :
      “39. 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,             D
      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          E
      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
                                                                            F
      months.”
        6.1 Thereafter, a further clarificatory order came to be passed
by this Court in Contempt Petition (C) Nos.699-700 of 2015. This Court
clarified as under:
       “So far as the present case is concerned, relief of                  G
      regularization was declined, but this Court directed the
      payment of minimum of the pay which, as we have explained
      above, would mean basic pay + grade pay + dearness
      allowance + washing allowance.
                                                                            H
500            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A            However, we make it clear that the pay that is given to the
            petitioners will not be on a monthly basis, but will be calculated
            with reference to each day of work put in by the petitioners.”
              6.2 Thereafter, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs
      vide communication dated 16.09.2016 requested Chief Secretaries of all
B     the States and Union Territories to issue necessary directions for
      compliance of the judgment of this Court in the case of Grah Rakshak
      (supra) and further clarificatory order. That thereafter a complaint was
      made on behalf of the Home Guards of the State of Orissa about
      disobedience of the order passed by this Court regarding payment of
C     salary to Home Guards in the State and to that the Government of India,
      Ministry of Home Affairs vide communication dated 05.10.2016 addressed
      to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Orissa, requested
      for taking appropriate action. That thereafter in the recommendation
      dated 10.11.2016, Director General (Fire Service, Home Guards, Civil
      Defence) Orissa recommended to pay to the Home Guards in the State
D     of Orissa, DCA at Rs.533/- per day as per minimum of the pay to which
      the Police personnel of the State were entitled. Despite the above, the
      State Government did not pay the DCA as per the judgment of this
      Court in the case of Grah Rakshak (supra) and as per the further
      clarificatory order. However, the Home Guards in the State were being
E     paid the DCA at Rs.7,200/- per month/Rs.9,000/- per month as being
      paid to the Constables appointed under Rule 2013. It is required to be
      noted that under Rule 2013, the Constables in the State initially are
      appointed on contractual basis and thereafter, after few years of service,
      they are made permanent. However, after they are made permanent,
F     they are being put in the minimum of the pay-scale and therefore, the
      Home Guards shall be entitled to the DCA taking into consideration the
      minimum of the pay to which the Police personnel of the State are entitled
      at the time of their initial appointment on regular basis/permanent basis,
      after rendering their contractual services under Rule 2013. At this stage,
      it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in the case of
G     Grah Rakshak (supra) and further clarificatory order has also been
      complied with by several States like Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Madhya
      Pradesh, Bihar, Chhastisgarh, Maharashtra, Kerala, Haryana, Goa, NCT
      of Delhi and Union Territory of Lakshadweep etc. which is evident from
      the following chart:
H
 PRAKASH KUMAR JENA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF ODISHA                             501
             & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

                                                                              A




                                                                              B




                                                                              C




                                                                              D




       6.3 Therefore, the State of Orissa cannot be permitted to now          E
submit that as contractual Constables appointed under Rule 2013 are
being paid a fixed lump sum amount at the entry level, the Home Guards
after rendering 10 to 15 years of service also shall be entitled to the
same fixed salary. The aforesaid stand would be just contrary to the
directions issued by this Court in the case of Grah Rakshak (supra) and       F
the subsequent further clarificatory order. Under the circumstances, the
High Court has rightly directed to pay the DCA at Rs.533/- per day. As
such we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore,
the appeals preferred by the State to that extent deserve dismissal.
                                                                              G
       7. Now, so far as the appeals preferred by the original writ
petitioners against the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court restricting the benefit of DCA at Rs.533/
- per day from January, 2020, is concerned, at the outset it is required to
be noted that no cogent reasons have been assigned by the Division
Bench of the High Court to restrict the benefit of Rs.533/- per day from      H
502              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     January, 2020 instead of 10.11.2016. Even otherwise, it is required to be
      noted that this Court as such delivered judgment in the case of Grah
      Rakshak (supra) as far back in the month of March, 2015 and a further
      clarificatory order was passed on 04.05.2016. Even thereafter the Director
      General recommended on 10.11.2016 to pay DCA at Rs.533/- per day
      which was in consonance with the decision of this Court in the case of
B
      Grah Rakshak (supra) and the subsequent clarificatory order dated
      04.05.2016. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court is not
      justified in restricting the benefit of the DCA at Rs.533/- per day from
      January, 2020. However, at the same time considering the fact that there
      were 17765 Home Guards working and even as observed by the
C     Commander General / Director General in its recommendation dated
      10.11.2016, there will be a financial implication of Rs.51,78,775/- on the
      Government per day towards payment of DCA at Rs.293/- per day
      (Rs.533 – Rs.240) and the annual financial implication would come to
      Rs.189 Crores if they are engaged 365 days a year and taking into
      consideration such a huge financial burden, we restrict the benefit of
D
      DCA at Rs.533/- per day from the date of filing of the writ petition
      before the learned Single Judge which would be from 01.06.2018.
             8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      appeals preferred by the State of Orissa are hereby dismissed with the
      modification as under and the appeals preferred by the original writ
E     petitioners/Home Guards are partly allowed as under.
             9. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
      confirmed by the Division Bench directing to pay to the Home Guards in
      the State, DCA at Rs.533/- per day are hereby confirmed. However, it
      is clarified that the arrears at the rate of Rs.533/- per day shall be paid
F     from 01.06.2018. The arrears shall be paid within a period of three months
      from today. It goes without saying that the Home Guards shall be entitled
      to the periodical rise which may be available to the Police personnel of
      the State and the DCA to be paid to the Home Guards be periodically
      increased taking into consideration the minimum of the pay to which the
G     Police personnel of the State are entitled considering periodical increase
      from time to time. The present appeals stand disposed in terms of the
      above. There shall be no orders as to costs.

      Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeals disposed of.
      (Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Mahendra Yadav, LCRAs)
H