STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus PANTHA CHATTERJEE AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 07-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
PANTHA CHATTERJEE AND ORS. 
JULY 7, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARL JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Parity in emoluments and working conditions-State Government 
raising battalion of Home Guards for patrolling border and checking C 
infiltration-Recruitment by State Government and also initial expenditure 
incurred by it-Deployment by Central Government-Expenditure on salaiy 
to be incurred by State Government but to be reimbursed by Central 
Government-Home guardv volunteers to be deployed initially for not more 
than three months-However, Home Guards serving without a break in service D 
for a long time-State Government recommending regularization of their 
services as permanent BWHGs-Pe1forming similar duties and discharging 
same responsibility as of permanent Home Guards-Disparity in emoluments 
and service conditions-Writ petition seeking parity-Single Judge of High 
Court holding that they are not volunteers engaged in casual nature of work 
to be termed as part time staff thus entitled to same benefits as admissible E 
to permanent home guards and Union of India responsible for salary and 
other allowances payable as ;·eimbursement to State Government-Division 
Bench upholding the same-Correctness of-Held: Once the scheme could 
not be implemented as framed and part-time BWHGs continued under the 
authority of those vested with such power to continue them, they cannot be F 
denied the same benefits as admissible to the permanent staff of BWHGs-
Hence, High Court rightly accorded parity with permanent staff of BWHGs-
State being in the position of an emp.'oyer, owes the primary responsibility 
of making all the payments but this burden of expenditure must ultimately 
be borne by Central Government and it cannot get out of its liability-West 
Bengal Home Guards Act, 1962. 
G 
Government of India promulgated a scheme and State Government 
raised battalion of Border Wings Home Guards (BWHG). This was raised 
for the purpose of patrolling the border and checking infiltration of foreigners 
from across the borders. The recruitment was to be made by the State 
427 
H 
428 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003J SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Government and also the initial expenditure of setting up the battalion. The 
deployment was to be made by the Central Government. The expenditure 
incurred in payment of salary for implementing the scheme was to be incurred 
by the State Government which was to be reimbursed by the Central 
Government State Government as per the scheme recruited full time and part 
time BWHGs. BWHG volunteers were to be deployed initially for not more 
B than three months. However, they have been continuously deployed without 
break in service for a long time. BWHG performed same duties and 
discharged same responsibilities as the permanent BWHG. However, there 
has been disparity in their emoluments and other conditions. State 
Government recommended for making the services of Home Guards 
C permanent Respondents BWHG filed writ petition complaining that they were 
being discriminated vis-a-vis other regular BWHG and Border Security Force 
Personnel. Single Judge of High Court held that they could not be treated as 
volunteers engaged in casual nature of work so as to be treated as part-time 
staff and that they are entitled to the same benefits as admissible to the 
permanent BWHGs; and that Union of India is responsible for the salary and 
D other allowances payable since the Central Government had undertaken to 
reimburse the State Government. On behalf of the State Government it was 
contended that the liability to make payment would be of Central Government 
alone. Division Bench upheld the order of Single Judge. Hence the present 
appeal 
E 
Union of India contended that the State Government could not fasten the 
financial liability upon the Central Government; that the respondent-
petitioners are not the employees of the Central Government; and that the 
petitioners are not be entitled to the relief as granted by the High Court. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I The part time Border Wing Home Guards could not be 
treated differently from the permanent staff of the BWHG. High Court rightly 
accorded parity with them. [441-DI 
G 
1.2. BWHGs have been continuously deployed since 1978-79. Such a 
H 
long and continued deployment, which was initially envisaged only for a period 
of three months, was contrary to the Scheme taking away the voluntary nature 
of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.