Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court Orders Payment of Duty Call-up Allowance to Odisha Home Guards

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has directed the State of Odisha to pay Duty Call-up Allowance (DCA) to Home Guards at a rate of Rs. 533 per day, starting from the date of filing the writ petition. The judgment, delivered on March 17, 2023, by a bench comprising Justices M. R. Shah and M. M. Sundresh, affirmed the rights of Home Guards to receive fair compensation for their services. The Court emphasized that the payment should be in accordance with the minimum pay given to police personnel in the state.

The judgment, arising from the case of Prakash Kumar Jena & Ors. v. The State of Odisha & Ors., stemmed from a writ petition filed by Home Guards who had served for over 10 to 15 years. The petition sought salary disbursement as per a previous Supreme Court decision in the case of Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted, "The State of Odisha cannot be permitted to now submit that as contractual Constables appointed under Rule 2013 are being paid a fixed lump sum amount at the entry level, the Home Guards after rendering 10 to 15 years of service also shall be entitled to the same fixed salary. The aforesaid stand would be just contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the case of Grah Rakshak (supra) and the subsequent clarificatory order."

The Court further added, "The Home Guards shall be entitled to the periodical rise which may be available to the Police personnel of the State, and the DCA to be paid to the Home Guards be periodically increased taking into consideration the minimum of the pay to which the Police personnel of the State are entitled, considering periodical increase from time to time."

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has ensured that the Home Guards in Odisha will receive fair compensation for their dedicated service. The ruling sets a significant precedent, upholding the rights of Home Guards and establishing clear guidelines for the payment of DCA.

Date of Decision: March 17, 2023

PRAKASH KUMAR JENA & ORS.  vs THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.               

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/17-Mar-2023-Parksash-vs-State-Odisha.pdf"]

Latest Legal News