Himachal Pradesh HC Denies Compassionate Appointment To Home Guard Dependents [Read Judgment]

Himachal Pradesh: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed petitions seeking compassionate appointment for dependents of deceased Home Guards, emphasizing that temporary volunteers cannot claim the same employment benefits as regular government servants.

Justice Satyen Vaidya made observations on the nature of Home Guard employment and the scope of compassionate appointment schemes in cases involving volunteer services.

The court addressed two connected cases — CWPOA No. 5422 of 2020 and CWPOA No. 6225 of 2020 — filed by Jogindra and Mano Devi respectively, seeking appointment under the Employment Assistance Scheme to the Dependents of Government Servants, following the death of their husbands who served as Home Guards.

Addressing the specific claims of the petitioners, the court noted:

“The petitioners approached the respondent authorities for appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme of the State Government, but their claims were rejected on the ground that the benefit of the Compassionate Appointment Scheme was not available to Home Guards or their families, as Home Guards were neither in permanent employment nor could they be termed as government servants.”

The court highlighted the temporary nature of Home Guard service, citing Grah Rakshak Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, stating:

“They have been enrolled and there is no appointment on a regular basis. They have never been paid salary/wages, and there is no provision to make any payment of salary/wages other than the duty allowance and other allowances.”

In a significant observation, the court remarked:

“When the job performed by Home Guards has been assessed to be purely of a temporary nature, it will not be prudent to hold their dependents entitled to benefits under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme. The dependents of a Home Guard cannot raise a claim for a permanent job, when the Home Guard himself renders only a voluntary and temporary job.”

The court emphasized the principle that dependents cannot claim greater employment rights than those held by the deceased employee, noting that Home Guards are called upon to discharge duties only as and when required and are not on permanent rolls.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that neither the Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1968, nor the Compassionate Appointment Scheme explicitly excluded Home Guards from its benefits. However, the state contended that Home Guards receive only temporary allowances and are not regular employees.

The court dismissed both petitions as being devoid of merit, finding no grounds for extending compassionate appointment benefits to Home Guard dependents.

Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate, appeared for the Petitioners, and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, appeared for the State of Himachal Pradesh.

Case Title: Jogindra vs. State of H.P. & Others

[Read Judgment]