Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of PRAKASH KUMAR JENA v. THE STATE OF ODISHA (2023 INSC 254), addressed the contentious issue surrounding the payment of Duty Call-up Allowance (DCA) to Home Guards employed by the State of Odisha. The appellants, comprising Home Guards and the State of Odisha, challenged the decisions of the High Court of Orissa, which upheld a directive to pay Home Guards a DCA of Rs. 533 per day. This case primarily hinges on the implementation timeline of this allowance and the financial implications for the State.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court largely affirmed the High Court of Orissa's decision to grant Home Guards a DCA of Rs. 533 per day, aligning with the precedent set in the Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association v. State Of Himachal Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 247. However, the Court introduced a modification concerning the retroactive payment of arrears. While the High Court had ordered the payment from January 2020, the Supreme Court adjusted this date to June 2018, citing the significant financial burden on the State. Consequently, the appeals filed by the State of Odisha were dismissed, and the appeals by the Home Guards were partially allowed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references the Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association v. State Of Himachal Pradesh, where the Supreme Court directed State Governments to pay Home Guards a DCA equivalent to the minimum pay of their police counterparts. This precedent was pivotal in shaping the Court's stance on ensuring equitable compensation for Home Guards across various States. Additionally, the subsequent clarificatory order in Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 699-700 of 2015 further elucidated the components of the DCA, emphasizing its calculation based on daily work rather than a fixed monthly basis.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court underscored the necessity of adhering to its earlier directives, emphasizing that Home Guards, despite being in contractual appointments under Rule 2013, perform duties akin to regular police personnel. The Court acknowledged the State's financial concerns but maintained that the significant delay in implementing the initial directive warranted at least partial compliance. By setting the retroactive date to June 2018, the Court balanced the need for timely remuneration with the practical financial constraints faced by the State.

Impact

This judgment sets a definitive legal standard for the remuneration of Home Guards, ensuring that their compensation is on par with their police counterparts. It compels State Governments to honor judicial directives promptly, fostering accountability and uniformity in the treatment of Home Guards across India. Moreover, by addressing the retroactive payment timeline, the Court provides a pragmatic solution that mitigates undue financial strain on the State while upholding the rights of the Home Guards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Duty Call-up Allowance (DCA)

DCA is a per diem allowance granted to personnel like Home Guards who are called upon to perform duties outside their regular schedules. It compensates for the additional responsibilities and inconvenience faced during such call-ups.

Home Guards under Rule 2013

Rule 2013 pertains to the appointment and remuneration structure of Home Guards in Odisha. Initially appointed on a contractual basis, these personnel can attain permanent status after a certain period of service. Despite their contractual beginnings, their roles are critical in maintaining internal security and order.

Pay Commission Impact

Pay Commissions in India periodically review and recommend changes to the salaries of government employees. The 6th and 7th Pay Commissions, referenced in this case, affected the remuneration scales, leading to the re-evaluation of allowances like DCA to ensure parity and adequacy.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in PRAKASH KUMAR JENA v. THE STATE OF ODISHA reaffirms the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of auxiliary police forces like the Home Guards. By mandating a fair DCA and ensuring its timely disbursement, the Court not only upholds the dignity of these personnel but also reinforces the importance of uniform compensation across different states. This judgment serves as a crucial reference point for future litigations concerning the remuneration and rights of Home Guards and similar organizations.

Implementation Across States

The judgment highlights the varied implementation of the Supreme Court's directives across different States. The following table summarizes the DCA payments made by various States, reflecting their compliance and the financial implications involved:

Sl. No.	State	Payment w.e.f.	Pay Rs.	Grade Pay Rs.	DA Rs. (19%)	Wash Allowance Rs.	Total Amount (Rs.)
1	Punjab	14.10.16	10,300/-	3,200/-	16,165/-	80/-	29,565/-
2	Madhya Pradesh	14.10.16	10,300/-	3,200/-	16,065/-	80/-	29,565/-
3	Bihar	18.10.16	10,300/-	3,200/-	16,065/-	80/-	29,565/-
4	Chhattisgarh	20.10.16	10,300/-	3,200/-	16,065/-	80/-	29,565/-
5	Maharashtra	27.10.16	10,300/-	3,200/-	16,065/-	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/-	9,294/-	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/-)
11	New Delhi	01.01.18	18,000/-	-	1,260/-	90/-	20,550/-