IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

254 Date of Decision: 09.10.2025

1. CWP-9455-2014

HARDEV SINGH ...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondents

2. CWP-9494-2014

GURPAL SINGH ...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate with

Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate,

Mr. Prabhat Kashyap, Advocate and

Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions,

with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this

common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are

borrowed from CWP-9455-2014.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking regularization.

3. The petitioner belongs to Backward Class. He passed middle

examination in 1987. He was recruited as Home Guard/Volunteer by

respondent on the basis of recruitment trial/test. He was recruited on

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -2-

18.03.1992 subject to his character verification and medical examination.

On the basis of report of character verification and medical examination,

he was allowed to join on 06.04.1992. He was subjected to training and

thereafter posted at different places. He was holding LTV Driving License

and respondent assigned him duty of driver. He worked as Driver from

June’ 2009 to August’ 2014. He thereafter was assigned duty of Gunman

of Deputy Battalion Commander. In December’ 2012, he participated in

the recruitment process of regular Drivers. He could not succeed in the

selection process, however, continued to work as Driver/Gunman. At the

time of his joining, he was paid salary Rs.40/- per month besides Rs.20/-

per month as washing allowance. His salary and washing allowance were

revised from time to time. He claimed regularization as per judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others

Versus Uma Devi (3) and Others’, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and policy framed by

State Government. He claimed that he has completed 10 years’ service by

10.12.2006.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that

petitioner was entitled to be regularized as per judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Uma Devi (Supra) as well as policy framed by State

Government. The petitioner has completed requisite number of years,

thus, he was eligible for regularization. He had worked continuously

without interruption and Court protection. There was no break in his

service. His service could not be treated at par with normal Home Guard

Volunteer who performed duty, part of the year or part of the month or

part of the day. The petitioner performed duty of Driver/Gunman during

the entire year. He was discharged in June’ 2025 on attaining the age of

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -3-

58 years. He has worked with respondent without break for three decades,

thus, deserves to be regularized.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was

appointed as volunteer in terms of Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 (for

short ‘1947 Act’) read with Punjab Home Guard Rules, 1963 (in short

‘1963 Rules’). The nature of service of petitioner was volunteer. He could

do private job besides service with respondent. He was undoubtedly

engaged for whole of the year, however, his appointment was voluntary in

nature. As per compendium of instructions of Home Guards published by

Director General, Civil Defence, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government

of India, New Delhi, the object of recruiting Home Guards is to meet with

emergencies like flood, fire and famine. Any person may join Home

Guard Service. Even Government employees or students may join as

member of Home Guard.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record with their able assistance.

7. As per reply filed by respondent, genesis of Home Guards

and its role is as below:-

"The Compendium of Instructions of Home

Guards published by Directorate General Civil

Defence, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of

India, New Delhi, mentions the Genesis of Home

Guard Organisation as below:-

1.1. Genesis

During World War-II, 'Home Guards'- a

voluntary citizen organisation for local defence was

raised in the United Kingdom. In India, in 6th

December 1946, Home Guards were raised in Bombay

to assist the police in controlling Civil disturbances

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -4-

and communal riots. Subsequently, this concept of a

voluntary citizen's force as auxiliary to the Police for

maintenance of law and order and for meeting

emergencies like floods, fires, famines etc. was

adopted by several other States such as Paranti

Raksha Dal, West Bengal Village block and Civic

Guards. In the wake of Chinese Aggression in 1962,

the Centre advised the States and Union Territories to

merge their existing voluntary organizations into one

all - India force known as 'Home Guards' which would

be voluntary both in concept and character.

1.2 Role

The following revised roles are assigned to the

Home Guards. These instructions have been reiterated

from time NOTA to time:

(a) Serve as an auxiliary to the police and assist

in maintaining internal security.

(b) Assist the community in any kind of

emergency an air raid, a fire, a flood, an epidemic and

so on.

(c) Organize functional units to provide

essential services such as motor transport, pioneer

and engineer groups, fire brigades, nursing and first-

aid, operation of water and power supply in

installations etc.

(d) Promote communal harmony and give

assistance to the administration in protecting weaker

sections of the

(e) Society. Participate in socio-economic and

welfare activities such as adult education, health and

hygiene, development schemes and such other tasks as

are deemed useful."

8. A two Judge Bench of Apex Court in ‘Union of India v.

Ilmo Devi’, (2021) 20 SCC 290 considered question of regularization of

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -5-

part time employees of Union of India. The Apex Court while setting

aside judgment of this Court has held that High Court in exercise of its

writ jurisdiction cannot ask State to regularize part time employees. The

Court has further held that part time employees cannot claim pay parity

with regular employees. The Court has noticed judgment of this Court in

Para 3.4 and returned findings in Para 16-19 which are reproduced as

below:

“3.4. By the impugned common

judgment and order [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi,

2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144], the High Court has

disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions with the

following directions : (Ilmo Devi case [Union of

India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144] ,

SCC OnLine P&H paras 22-23)

“22. We, thus, direct the petitioner

authorities to revisit the whole issue in its right

perspective and complete the exercise to

reformulate their policy and take a decision to

sanction the posts in phased manner within a

specified time schedule. Let such a decision be

taken within a period of six months from the

date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

23. Till the exercise as directed above, is

undertaken, the respondents shall continue in

service with their current status but those of

them who have completed 20 years as part-time

daily wagers, shall be granted “minimum”

basic pay of Group “D” post(s) w.e.f. 1-4-2015

and/or the date of completion of 20 years

contractual service, whichever is later.”

XXXX XXXX XXXX

16. Thus, as per the law laid down by this

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -6-

Court in the aforesaid decisions part-time employees

are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not

working against any sanctioned post and there cannot

be any permanent continuance of part-time temporary

employees as held. Part-time temporary employees in

a Government run institution cannot claim parity in

salary with regular employees of the Government on

the principle of equal pay for equal work.

17. Applying the law laid down by this Court

in the aforesaid decisions, the directions issued by the

High Court in the impugned judgment and order

[Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H

5144], more particularly, directions in paras 22 and

23 are unsustainable and beyond the power of the

judicial review of the High Court in exercise of the

power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even

otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present

case, the Union of India/Department subsequently

came out with a regularisation policy dated 30-6-

2014, which is absolutely in consonance with the law

laid down by this Court in Umadevi (3) [State of

Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1], which

does not apply to the part-time workers who do not

work on the sanctioned post. As per the settled

preposition of law, the regularisation can be only as

per the regularisation policy declared by the

State/Government and nobody can claim the

regularisation as a matter of right dehors the

regularisation policy. Therefore, in absence of any

sanctioned post and considering the fact that the

respondents were serving as a contingent paid part-

time Safai Karamcharies, even otherwise, they were

not entitled for the benefit of regularisation under the

regularisation policy dated 30-6-2014.

18. Though, we are of the opinion that even

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -7-

the direction contained in para 23 for granting

minimum basic pay of Group ‘D’ posts from a

particular date to those, who have completed 20 years

of part-time daily wage service also is unsustainable

as the part-time wagers, who are working for four to

five hours a day and cannot claim the parity with

other Group ‘D’ posts. However, in view of the order

passed by this Court dated 22-7-2016 [Union of

India v. Ilmo Devi, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1933] while

issuing notice in the present appeals, we are not

quashing and setting aside the directions contained in

para 23 in the impugned judgment and order [Union

of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144]

so far as the respondents' employees are concerned.

19. In view of the above and for the reasons

stated above, both the appeals succeed. The impugned

judgment and order [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi,

2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144] passed by the High

Court and, more particularly, the directions contained

in paras 22 and 23 in the impugned judgment and

order [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine

P&H 5144] are hereby quashed and set aside.

However, it is observed that quashing and setting

aside the directions issued in terms of para 23 in the

impugned judgment and order [Union of India v. Ilmo

Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144] shall not affect

the case of the respondents and they shall be entitled

to the reliefs as per para 23 of the impugned judgment

and order [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC

OnLine P&H 5144] passed by the High Court.”

9. A two Judge bench of Supreme Court in ‘Nihal Singh v.

State of Punjab’, (2013) 14 SCC 65 had the occasion to consider

question of regularization of Special Police Officers (SPOs) appointed

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -8-

under Section 17 of Police Act, 1861. A Division Bench of this Court

relying upon an earlier judgment of this court dismissed petitions of 20

SPOs and matter travelled to Apex Court which turned down claim of the

respondent-State of Punjab that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb

appellants despite their service of decades. The Court held that State

cannot take undue advantage of judgment of Supreme Court in Uma

Devi's case (supra). The said judgment cannot become licence for

exploitation by the State. After availing services for decades, it is not

justified for the State to take a defence that there are no sanctioned posts

to absorb the appellants.

10. In ‘Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand and

others’, (2018) 8 SCC 238, the Apex Court dealt with denial of

regularization and held that State of Jharkhand has continued with

irregular appointments for almost a decade after decision in Uma Devi's

case (supra) and it was nothing but exploitation of the employees by not

giving them their benefits. Resultantly, it was held that if they had

completed 10 years of service, they were to be regularized unless there is

valid objection to their regularization. Resultantly, the order of the High

Court was set aside which had itself placed reliance upon Uma Devi

(supra).

11. In “State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari” (2010) 9 SCC 247,

the Supreme Court noticed misuse by the State and its agencies, non-

compliance of order of the Apex Court and denying benefits to the

employees. The Court noticed that the object as such was two folds.

Firstly, those persons who had put in more than 10 years of services were

to be considered for regularization in view of the long service. Secondly,

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -9-

it was to ensure that departments do not perpetuate the practice of

employing persons on daily wage, adhoc or casual basis. It was held that

persons who had worked for more than 10 years on 10.04.2006 were

entitled for regularization and necessary directions were issued in the said

case and those not entitled because of lack of educational qualifications

were to be regularized on a lower post.

12. Supreme Court recently in ‘ Jaggo v. Union of India

and others’, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, noticing judgment of

Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra) has held that no employee can

be kept temporary for an indefinite period. An employee has right to be

considered for regularization. The relevant extracts of the judgment read

as:

“20. It is well established that the decision

in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize

employees who have rendered long years of service

fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State

or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to

prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments

that circumvent constitutional requirements. However,

where appointments were not illegal but possibly

“irregular,” and where employees had served

continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned

functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair

and humane resolution becomes paramount.

Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service

performing tasks inherently required on a regular

basis can, over the time, transform what was initially

ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair

regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court

in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [(2024) 1 SCR

1230], it was held that held that procedural

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -10-

formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of

service to an employee whose appointment was

termed “temporary” but has performed the same

duties as performed by the regular employee over a

considerable period in the capacity of the regular

employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have

been reproduced below:

“6. The application of the judgment

in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does

not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the

specific circumstances under which the

appellants were employed and have continued

their service. The reliance on procedural

formalities at the outset cannot be used to

perpetually deny substantive rights that have

accrued over a considerable period through

continuous service. Their promotion was based

on a specific notification for vacancies and a

subsequent circular, followed by a selection

process involving written tests and interviews,

which distinguishes their case from the

appointments through back door entry as

discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi

(supra) also distinguished between “irregular”

and “illegal” appointments underscoring the

importance of considering certain

appointments even if were not made strictly in

accordance with the prescribed Rules and

Procedure, cannot be said to have been made

illegally if they had followed the procedures of

regular appointments such as conduct of

written examinations or interviews as in the

present case…”

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -11-

22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment

contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a

broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers'

rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise

of the gig economy has led to an increase in

precarious employment arrangements, often

characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair

treatment. Such practices have been criticized for

exploiting workers and undermining labour

standards. Government institutions, entrusted with

upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear

an even greater responsibility to avoid such

exploitative employment practices. When public sector

entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it

not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in

the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent

that can erode public trust in governmental

operations.

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary

employees, particularly in government institutions,

often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While

the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may

have been to address short-term or seasonal needs,

they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade

long-term obligations owed to employees. These

practices manifest in several ways:

• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels :

Employees engaged for work that is essential,

recurring, and integral to the functioning of an

institution are often labelled as “temporary” or

“contractual,” even when their roles mirror

those of regular employees. Such

misclassification deprives workers of the

dignity, security, and benefits that regular

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -12-

employees are entitled to, despite performing

identical tasks.

• Arbitrary Termination : Temporary

employees are frequently dismissed without

cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This

practice undermines the principles of natural

justice and subjects workers to a state of

constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or

duration of their service.

• Lack of Career Progression :

Temporary employees often find themselves

excluded from opportunities for skill

development, promotions, or incremental pay

raises. They remain stagnant in their roles,

creating a systemic disparity between them and

their regular counterparts, despite their

contributions being equally significant.

• Using Outsourcing as a Shield :

Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing

roles performed by temporary employees,

effectively replacing one set of exploited

workers with another. This practice not only

perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a

deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer

regular employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits :

Temporary employees are often denied

fundamental benefits such as pension, provident

fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even

when their tenure spans decades. This lack of

social security subjects them and their families

to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,

retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.”

13. The respondent is relying upon judgment of Hon’ble

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -13-

Supreme Court in ‘Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association

Versus State of H.P. and Others’, 2015 (6) SCC 247. As per respondent,

the Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak (supra) has held that members of

Home Guard cannot claim regularization because of their nature of job.

Relevant extract of the judgment are reproduced as below:-

“21. It is not the case of the State Government that

enrollment/appointments of the Home Guards were

backdoor engagement and illegal made in violation of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore,

the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) is not applicable

in the case of the appellants-Home Guards. Admittedly,

there is no concept of wages. These volunteers are paid

duty allowance and other allowances to which they are

entitled. There is nothing on the record to suggest that they

performed duties through out the year.

On the other hand, it is the specific case of the

State that as and when there is requirement they were

called for duty and otherwise they remained in their

homes. Therefore, in absence of any details about

continuity of service, month to month basis or year to year

basis, the duties and responsibilities performed by them

through out the year can neither be equated with that of

police personnel.

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

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -14-

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]

14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Union of India Vs. K.

Velajagan And Ors.”, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 837 decided on 04.02.2025

has observed that decision in Uma Devi (supra) cannot be used as a

shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the

employer undertaking legitimate recruitment process to deny relief of

regularization.

15. In the case in hand, the petitioner joined Punjab Home

Guards on 06.04.1992. He worked as Driver/Gunman from 1992 to 2025.

He worked without interruption. There was no break in his service.

There was no interim order of any Court in his favour. It means the

petitioner worked with respondent for more than three decades without

interruption. The respondent was satisfied with his services. He was

working as Driver/Gunman, thus, it was not practically possible to do any

other job. He was performing duties as full-time employee. He was paid

salary as per judgment of Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak (supra). The

respondent is not disputing the fact that they have framed policies with

respect to regularization of Class III and IV employees. The respondent

is denying benefit of regularization on the sole ground that petitioner was

a volunteer and as per judgment of Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak

(supra), a volunteer cannot claim regularization.

16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak (supra) denied

benefit of regularization on the ground that members of Home Guard are

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -15-

paid duty allowance and other allowances. There was nothing on record

to suggest that they performed duties throughout the year. Stand of the

State before Supreme Court was that members of Home Guard were

engaged as and when there was requirement and otherwise they remained

in their homes.

17. The findings recorded by Supreme Court in para 21 of the

judgment in Grah Rakshak (supra) support case of the petitioner. State

herein is not claiming that petitioner was called as and when there was

requirement. State is not claiming that petitioner did not work throughout

the year. The petitioner has candidly claimed that he uninterruptedly

worked with respondent for more than three decades. It is apt to notice

here that petitioner superannuated in June’ 2025 and writ petition was

filed in 2014. The petitioner continued to work during the pendency of

instant petition though there was no stay in his favour. At the cost of

repetition, it is hereby noticed that petitioner worked with respondent

from 1994 to 2025 continuously and without Court’s intervention. This

peculiar feature makes his case entirely different from case/facts

considered by Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak (supra). The respondent

cannot deny benefit of regularization on the sole ground that as per

judgment of Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak (supra), members of

Home Guard cannot be regularized.

18. The second limb of argument of respondent to deny benefit

of regularization is nature of job contemplated by compendium of

instructions issued by Ministry of Home Affairs. As per instructions of

Home Department as well as arguments of respondent, a student/

businessman and even a Government employee may be member of Home

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -16-

Guards because it is voluntary contribution of citizens of the country. It

is in form of service. It is not a job entailing remuneration. It is service

entailing honorarium. The respondent is trying to misinterpret as well as

misuse concept visualized by compendium of instructions issued by

Home Department as well as 1947 Act read with Rules made thereunder.

Intention of all the statutory provisions and instructions is to engage

volunteer for a particular period. U.T. Chandigarh has issued Standing

Order dated 14.01.2021 wherein it is contemplated that tenure of member

of Home Guard would be three years which may be extended up to five

years. The relevant extract of Standing Order reads as:-

“

Tenure of Enrolment:-

The Home Guards Volunteers will initially be enrolled for

a period of 3 years which can be extended for another two

years on merits. Thus, the maximum period for which

Home Guards should be retained will be 3 to 5 years and

they must be turned over to allow to fresh intake for

keeping the voluntary character of the organization young

and vibrant. However, commandant General Home Guards

is competent to grant further extension to those volunteers

whose work and conduct, record and performance are

found satisfactory.”

19. It is apt to understand here voluntary nature of any job/work.

If a person comes forward to render his service without consideration, it

is called as voluntary service. Intention of the service provider is to serve

recipient without consideration. There is no quid pro quo. In a country

where there is scarcity of job and poverty is writ large, it cannot be

assumed that a man would work for decades for the entire day as a

volunteer. The petitioner was getting salary which was equal to minimum

of pay scale of a Constable. He was also getting dearness allowance apart

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -17-

from other allowances like washing allowance. The appointment of

petitioner was not a backdoor entry. There was trial, medical examination

and character verification. All these facts collectively prove that

petitioner worked for remuneration which was titled as honorarium. He

had worked as a normal employee though was called as volunteer. It

would be unjustified and unfair if Class IV or III employees of all other

departments are regularized on the basis of service of more than ten years

but members of Home Guard are denied said benefit on the ground that

they are volunteers. A member who is working for part of the day or part

of the month or part of the year and doing some other job for his

livelihood may be called as volunteer, however, a man who is working

entire day and without interruption for three decades cannot be called as

volunteer. The respondent is exploiting citizens of the country in the

name of volunteers. Case of petitioners is squarely covered by judgments

of Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra) and ‘Dharam Singh and Ors. Vs.

State of U.P. and Anr.’ 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735.

20. Learned State counsel pointed out that Hardev Singh

(petitioner in CWP-9455-2014) stands discharged on attaining the age of

58 years, thus, cannot be regularized at this stage. He was paid minimum

of pay scale of Constable along with dearness and other allowances

during his service. Gurpal Singh (petitioner in CWP-9494-2014) is still

in service. He is performing duties of Clerk since 2000. He was

recruited in 1993 and would attain age of 58 years in 2030.

21. Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that Hardev Singh may be granted lump sum amount because he was not

paid either gratuity or leave encashment or pension because of non-

CWP-9455-2014 and CWP-9494-2014 -18-

regularization, though, he approached this Court in 2014

22. The Court finds substance in the prayer of Hardev Singh.

Accordingly, respondent is directed to pay lump sum amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- to Hardev Singh.

23. Gurpal Singh is still in service. He is entitled to be

regularized. Accordingly, respondent is hereby directed to regularize

him. An appropriate order of regularization shall be passed within six

months and in case respondent fails to pass said order, Gurpal Singh shall

be deemed to be regularized on the expiry of said period.

24. Before parting with the judgment, I would hasten to add that

aforesaid order may give impetus to many similarly situated employees to

file petitions before this Court. To avoid multiplicity of petitions, this

Court finds it appropriate to ask respondent-State to frame policy with

respect to regularization of members of Home Guard who without

interruption are working full time for decades and not doing any other

private job.

25. Allowed in above terms.

26. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

09.10.2025

Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No