/2023 INSC 0188/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8836/2022
PRAKASH KUMAR JENA & ORS.          ..APPELLANT(S)
    
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.    .. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
C.A. No. 8837 / 2022
WITH
C.A. No. 8838     / 2022
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
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
  :  1  :

appeals.
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   matter   of   C.A.No.8836   of   2022.
Therefore,   C.A.   No.8836   of   2022   arising   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  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
  :  2  :

the   case   of   Grah   Rakshak,   Home   Guards   Welfare
Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
reported   in   (2015)   6   SCC   247   and   the   subsequent
order   /   clarificatory   order   dated   04.05.2016   passed   in
Contempt   Petition   (C)   Nos.   699­700   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   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   account   the   increase
in the pay of the Constables on application of the 7 th
  Pay
Commission’s report. That it is required to be noted that
  :  3  :

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   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
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   affirmed
the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single
  :  4  :

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 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   the   State   to   pay
Rs.533/­ per day as Duty Call­up 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 Group­C & Group­D (Contractual
Appointment)   Rules,   2013   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the
  :  5  :

Rule, 2013). 
3.1 It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   failed   to
appreciate   that   earlier   as   per   the   6 th
  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 were
entitled  to   get  Rs.240/­  per  day   as Daily  Pay  allowance/
Duty   Call­up   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   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).
  :  6  :

3.2 It   is   further   submitted   that   even   the   High   Court   has
materially   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 allowances of the Home Guards paid by
other States in the country. It is 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   of   the   State   that   if   the   Home  Guards   in   the  State
  :  7  :

are paid daily pay allowance / Duty Call­up 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   7 th
  Pay   Commission
would get only Rs.9,000/­ per month, whereas at the rate
of   Rs.533/­   per   day,   the   Home   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   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.
3.5 With above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present
  :  8  :

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 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 (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   dispute   arose   whether
  :  9  :

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.
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   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
  :  10  :

Rs.533/­   per   day   to   the   Home   Guards   in   the   State   of
Orissa   from   10.11.2016   in   light   of   the   judgment   of   this
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   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   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
  :  11  :

Department,   Government   of   Orissa   for   taking
appropriate   action   regarding   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   passed   by   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court
in   the   matter   of   Grah   Rakshak,   Home   Guards
Welfare   Association   vs.   State   of   Himachal   Pradesh
and   judgment   dated   04.05.2016   passed   in
Contempt Petition (C) No.699­700 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   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
  :  12  :

in the police personnel.
(v) The   Ministry   of   Petroleum   and   Natural   Gas,
Government   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.699­700 of 2015 regarding  payment of Home
Guards’ salary, for appropriate action.
(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)   No.699­700   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.
  :  13  :

4.4 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   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
6 th
  Pay   Commission   and   thereafter   at   the   rate   of
Rs.9,000/­   per   month   after   the   7 th
  Pay   Commission
recommendations   and   therefore,   the   Home   Guards   shall
be   entitled   to   the   same   consolidated   remuneration   of
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   regularization   of
their services have been declined. It is submitted that the
question  is what the Constables are getting as minimum
of the pay­scale/pay. It is submitted that all the aforesaid
  :  14  :

aspects   were   as   such   dealt   with   and   considered   by   the
Director   General   in   his   recommendation   dated
10.11.2016.
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.
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 given by the Division Bench of the High Court
restricting the said benefits from January, 2020 only.
  :  15  :

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   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   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   therefore   the
learned Single Judge was justified in directing to pay DCA
  :  16  :

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.
4.9 By making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the
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. 
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   paragraph­39   directed   as
  :  17  :

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,   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.”
 
6.1 Thereafter, a further clarificatory order came to be passed
by   this   Court   in   Contempt   Petition   (C)   Nos.699­700   of
2015. This Court clarified as under: 
“So   far   as   the   present   case   is   concerned,   relief   of
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.
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
  :  18  :

vide   communication   dated   16.09.2016   requested   Chief
Secretaries of all 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   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 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
  :  19  :

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 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, they are being put in the minimum
of the pay­scale 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   Grah   Rakshak   (supra)   and   further   clarificatory
order  has  also been  complied with  by  several  States like
  :  20  :

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:
Sl.
No. Name of the
State Payment
w.e.f. Pay Rs. Grade
Pay Rs. DA Rs.
(19%) Wash
Allowan
ce Total
amount
in Rs.
1 Punjab 14.10.16 10,300/­ 3,200/­ 16165/­ 80/­ 29,565/­
2 Madhya
Pradesh 14.10.16 10,300/­ 3,200/­ 16065/­ 80/­ 29,565/­
3 Bihar 18.10.16 10,300/­ 3,200/­ 16065/­ 80/­ 29,565/­
4 Chhatisgarh 20.10.16 10,300/­ 3,200/­ 16065/­ 80/­ 29,565/­
5 Maharashtra 27.10.16 10,300/­ 3,200/­ 16065/­ 80/­ 29,565/­
6 Kerala 04.03.16 ­ ­ ­ ­ 18,000/­
(per day
600/­)
7 Haryana 01.11.16 ­ ­ ­ ­ 17,160/­
(per day
572/­)
8 Himachal
Pradesh 14.10.15 5,910/­ 1,900/­ 9294/­ 30/­ 17,134/­
9 Goa 01.06.17 18,000/­ ­ 720/­ 50/­ 18,770/­
(p.d.
642/­)
10 Lakshadweep
14.08.18 ­ ­ ­ ­ 19,260/­
(p.d.
642/­)
  :  21  :

11 New Delhi 01.01.18 18,000/­ ­ 1,260/­ 90/­ 20,550/­
6.3 Therefore, the State of Orissa cannot be permitted to now
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 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.
8.  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
  :  22  :

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 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   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
  :  23  :

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   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 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.
9. 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   petitioners/Home
Guards are partly allowed as under. 
10.   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
  :  24  :

day are hereby confirmed. However, it is clarified that the
arrears at the rate of Rs.533/­ per day shall be paid 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 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. 
………………………………… J.
             (M. R. SHAH)
………………………………… J.
     (M.M. SUNDRESH)
New Delhi, 
March 17, 2023
  :  25  :