Volunteer Status Bars Compassionate Appointment:
A Comprehensive Commentary on Mano Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh
(2025 HHC 23412)

1. Introduction

Background. The petitioners, Jogindra and Mano Devi, are widows of deceased Home Guard volunteers who perished while engaged under the Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1968. They sought government employment under the State’s “Employment Assistance Scheme to the Dependents of Government Servants” (popularly known as the Compassionate Appointment Scheme).

Key Issue. Whether the dependents of Home Guard volunteers—whose engagement is admittedly voluntary, temporary and only remunerated by duty allowance—are “dependents of Government servants” eligible for compassionate appointment.

Parties. Petitioners were represented by Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate; the State and its functionaries were represented by Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.

Decision Date. 21 July 2025, per Justice Satyen Vaidya, Himachal Pradesh High Court.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed both petitions, holding that:

• Home Guards are volunteers, not regular government servants; their engagement is of a temporary, as-and-when-required nature.
• Because the Compassionate Appointment Scheme extends only to dependents of Government servants, the petitioners had no enforceable right to claim appointment under the Scheme.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association v. State Of Himachal Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 247 conclusively characterises Home Guards as volunteers lacking regular service status and salary; that characterisation governs the present controversy.
• Jharkhand High Court authority (Chanda Devi, 2006) was distinguishable on facts (death in extremist encounter) and did not lay down any general principle entitling Home Guards’ dependents to compassionate appointment.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association v. State Of Himachal Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 247.
   • Supreme Court refused regularisation of Home Guards, stressing their “volunteer” status, absence of salary and ad-hoc utilisation.
   • Justice Vaidya employed paragraphs 33-39 to emphasise that Home Guards cannot be equated to police personnel or regular employees.
2. Chanda Devi v. State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand HC, 19 May 2006).
   • Jharkhand High Court granted compassionate appointment where a Home Guard was killed on duty.
   • Distinguished because the decision hinged on the heroic death in active combat and specific state policies, not on a universal recognition of employment status.
3. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1.
   • Cited indirectly; Court clarified that Uma Devi (regularisation bar on backdoor appointees) was irrelevant since Home Guards are volunteers, not illegal appointees.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s syllogistic reasoning proceeded thus:

1. Definition Premise: A “Government servant” under the Scheme implies a person holding a regular, salaried post under the State.
2. Factual Premise: Home Guards serve only when requisitioned, receive duty allowance rather than salary, and lack continuity of service.
3. Normative Premise (from Grah Rakshak): Supreme Court authoritatively categorised Home Guards as volunteers, not employees.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, a Home Guard—being a volunteer—does not fit within the Scheme’s ambit; ergo, dependents cannot claim compassionate appointment.

In addition, the Court invoked the “no better right than the deceased” principle: a dependent’s entitlement cannot exceed the employment incidents of the deceased. Since the deceased never enjoyed regular service benefits, their dependents cannot demand them.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• State Policy Clarification. The ruling crystallises that, absent statutory amendment, Himachal Pradesh’s Compassionate Appointment Scheme excludes Home Guard families.
• Precedential Weight. As the judgment is marked “approved for reporting,” it gains persuasive—arguably binding—value for subordinate courts and tribunals within Himachal Pradesh.
• Inter-state Persuasion. Other states with identical Home Guard frameworks may rely on this rationale, curtailing similar claims unless their schemes expressly include volunteers.
• Legislative Signal. The decision puts the onus on the legislature/executive: if humane considerations favour such dependents, explicit policy inclusion or statutory amendment is required.
• Administrative Certainty. Government departments receive clearer guidance, reducing inconsistent treatment of applications from Home Guard families.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Home Guard. A civilian volunteer enrolled for emergency, disaster relief and auxiliary policing duties; engagement is not permanent employment.
• Compassionate Appointment. A policy allowing a dependent of a deceased/missing/incapacitated Government servant to secure State employment, aimed at immediate financial relief.
• Duty Allowance vs. Salary. “Allowance” is payment for each day/shift of duty; it does not create employer-employee relationship comparable to a salaried post which carries continuity, pension, gratuity etc.
• Volunteer Status. Legally signifies willingness to serve without contractual obligation for continuous, paid employment; terminable at any time without standard service protections.

5. Conclusion

Mano Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh underscores a decisive boundary: compassionate appointment is restricted to dependents of regular Government servants; volunteer Home Guards fall outside that perimeter. Drawing heavily on the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Grah Rakshak, the High Court reaffirmed the volunteer, non-employee character of Home Guards, thereby foreclosing claims to regular service benefits by their families.

The case serves as a critical precedent by (i) refusing to expand welfare schemes through judicial interpretation when statutory language is clear, and (ii) signalling that policy reforms—rather than litigation—are the proper avenue for extending benefits to volunteer forces’ dependents. Legal practitioners must therefore advise Home Guard families of this limitation unless and until legislative amendment intervenes.