Denial of Subsistence Allowance During Suspension Violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court  ruling that Home Guard volunteers are entitled to subsistence allowance during suspension if they have rendered continuous service for over a decade. Justice Jagmohan Bansal awarded ₹10,000 per month to the petitioner, Mahinder Ram, as subsistence allowance from the date of his suspension in 2019 until his dismissal in 2024. The court observed that the denial of such allowance infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, Mahinder Ram, had been a member of the Punjab Home Guards since August 5, 1992, serving continuously for 27 years. On August 30, 2019, he was placed under suspension due to a vigilance case registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. During this period, he was not provided with any subsistence allowance. Subsequently, on October 21, 2024, he was dismissed from service.

The petitioner challenged the suspension order and sought subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. He argued that his uninterrupted service for nearly three decades, during which he received monthly remuneration in the form of daily allowances, entitled him to financial security during suspension.

The respondents contended that the petitioner was a "volunteer" and not an employee, and therefore, he was not entitled to the benefits available to government employees. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of H.P. & Others, 2015 (6) SCC 247, to argue that Home Guards are not regular employees but volunteers who are called for duty only when required.

“No Power of Suspension Under Statutory Framework”

Justice Jagmohan Bansal noted that the Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947, and the Punjab Home Guards Rules, 1963, do not contain any provisions for the suspension of Home Guard volunteers or their entitlement to subsistence allowance. The court observed that the suspension power was derived from instructions issued by the Government of India and State Standing Orders. However, these instructions lacked any framework addressing the financial sustenance of suspended volunteers. The court remarked:

“From the statutory provisions, it is evident that there is no power vested in the officers to suspend any member of the Home Guards. The Government of India and State Government’s instructions permit suspension but fail to provide for subsistence allowance.”

The court emphasized that placing a volunteer under suspension without providing subsistence allowance would render the individual destitute and violate their constitutional rights.

"Continuous Service Grants Entitlement Akin to Workers Under Industrial Disputes Act"

Rejecting the respondents' argument that Home Guards are merely volunteers, the court held that the petitioner’s uninterrupted service for 27 years made him entitled to benefits akin to a “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court stated:

“The petitioner uninterruptedly worked for 27 years. The respondent is pleading that he was a volunteer and was not getting salary, whereas the petitioner uninterruptedly worked and got monthly salary in the form of allowances. Position of a volunteer of Home Guards who works uninterruptedly cannot be worse than a workman.”

The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur (2011) 6 SCC 584, where it was held that temporary and casual workers are entitled to protections under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s continuous service and regular payment of allowances made him eligible for fair treatment during suspension.

"Right to Livelihood and Dignity Cannot Be Denied"

The court highlighted the adverse impact of suspension on an employee’s financial and social well-being, particularly when the suspension lasts for several years without pay. It held that denial of subsistence allowance to the petitioner violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court observed:

“Suspension does not snap employer and employee relationship. It is discharge or dismissal from service which snaps said relationship. Denial of subsistence allowance would abridge the petitioner’s and his family members’ right to live with dignity.”

The court stressed that the right to live with dignity includes the right to financial sustenance, particularly for individuals who have served for decades in public service.

"Judicial Discretion Used to Fix Subsistence Allowance"

Acknowledging the absence of statutory provisions for subsistence allowance for Home Guards, the court invoked its judicial discretion to award a reasonable amount. Drawing inspiration from analogous provisions in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Fundamental Rules, and Punjab Police Rules, the court directed the payment of ₹10,000 per month as subsistence allowance. The court explained:

“In the absence of specific statutory provisions, this court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay a reasonable amount as subsistence allowance because constitutional courts are custodians of fundamental rights. Right to live like a human being is part of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.”

The court clarified that the payment of subsistence allowance would ensure that suspended volunteers are not driven to destitution while awaiting the resolution of disciplinary or criminal proceedings.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that his 27 years of continuous service entitled him to subsistence allowance during the suspension period. The court issued the following directions:

Subsistence Allowance of ₹10,000 Per Month: The petitioner was awarded ₹10,000 per month as subsistence allowance for the period from August 30, 2019 (date of suspension) to October 21, 2024 (date of dismissal).

Deadline for Payment: The respondents were directed to pay the arrears of subsistence allowance within three months, failing which an annual interest of 9% would apply.

Eligibility Criteria: The court limited the entitlement to subsistence allowance to Home Guard volunteers who had served for at least 10 uninterrupted years at the time of suspension.

Observations Limited to Subsistence Allowance: The court clarified that its observations were limited to the issue of subsistence allowance and did not preclude the petitioner from challenging his dismissal order under the applicable laws.

This judgment is a significant step toward recognizing the financial and social rights of Home Guard volunteers. By invoking Articles 14 and 21, the court underscored the importance of economic rights as part of the right to life and dignity. The ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications for the treatment of suspended Home Guard volunteers and other public servants working under similar conditions.

The judgment also highlights the need for legislative clarity on the suspension and financial entitlements of Home Guards, ensuring that procedural ambiguities do not lead to hardship for individuals who have dedicated their lives to public service.

Date of Judgment: January 10, 2025