# Lavkush Tiwari & Ors v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1371
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-19
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 18956 of 2022
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lavkush-tiwari-ors-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-53469
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Police Regulations -
Reg. 396 - Village Police/Gram Prahari -
Minimum
wages
as
per
the
Police
personnel claimed - Entitlement - Held,
a Village Policeman is free to undertake
any
kind
of
business,
trade
or
occupation and earn his livelihood out of
it; and, still, he can very well discharge
his duties as a Village Policeman. It is in
this context that the honourarium, being
paid to the Village Policeman or Gram
Prahari, is to be judged on the test of
reasonableness. We do not think that
the Gram Prahari or Village Policemen
are in any way subjected to any kind of
bondage
or
forced
labour,
taking
advantage of their position, emanating
from
the
lack
of
employment
opportunities - The petitioners are not
entitled to a mandamus, ordering the St.
Government to revise and enhance their
honourarium or pay, by whatever name
called, to bring it at par with the
minimum
pay
scale
earned
by
a
Policeman. (Para 53 and 57)
B. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14
-
Reasonable
classification
-
Remuneration of Rs. 2500/- per month
was being paid to Village Police
-
Constitutional validity on the touchstone
of reasonableness was challenged - Held,
this is not a whole time employment done
by the incumbent as his source of
livelihood - The remuneration of Rs.
2500/- per month in the present day may
be far on the lower side, does not make it
arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 53)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

_Characters 0–39,886 of 82,521. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39886 for what follows._

5 All. Lavkush Tiwari & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1371
whereas the correct answer as per
answer key would be अफ्रीका/दतक्षण अफ्रीका,
therefore, one mark could be granted.

 In these circumstances, petitioner
may be awarded 66+2=68 marks i.e. more
than cut off marks. The Court takes note
that since State has not brought any details
of revaluation in regard to the petitioner,
therefore, it may be a case that above marks
already being included in total marks,
therefore in the interest of justice, case of
the petitioner be re-examined by The
Examination Regulatory Authority to clear
the
position.
This
writ
petition
is
accordingly disposed of with further
observation that while re-examination,
status of vacancies may also be taken note
of.

 Conclusion:

 WRIT-A Nos.- 917 of 2021,
12467 of 2020 and 13506 of 2020 are
disposed of.

 WRIT-A Nos.-13075 of 2020,
12239 of 2020, 1628 of 2021, 12185 of
2020, 12418 of 2020, 14096 of 2020,
13564 of 2020, 12000 of 2021, 12692 of
2020, 12419 of 2020 and 12629 of 2020 are
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1371
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 18956 of 2022
Connected with
Writ-A No. 5771 of 2023

Lavkush Tiwari & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Aditya Prakash Verma, Shailesh Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - UP Police Regulations -
Reg. 396 - Village Police/Gram Prahari -
Minimum
wages
as
per
the
Police
personnel claimed - Entitlement - Held,
a Village Policeman is free to undertake
any
kind
of
business,
trade
or
occupation and earn his livelihood out of
it; and, still, he can very well discharge
his duties as a Village Policeman. It is in
this context that the honourarium, being
paid to the Village Policeman or Gram
Prahari, is to be judged on the test of
reasonableness. We do not think that
the Gram Prahari or Village Policemen
are in any way subjected to any kind of
bondage
or
forced
labour,
taking
advantage of their position, emanating
from
the
lack
of
employment
opportunities - The petitioners are not
entitled to a mandamus, ordering the St.
Government to revise and enhance their
honourarium or pay, by whatever name
called, to bring it at par with the
minimum
pay
scale
earned
by
a
Policeman. (Para 53 and 57)
B. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14
-
Reasonable
classification
-
Remuneration of Rs. 2500/- per month
was being paid to Village Police
-
Constitutional validity on the touchstone
of reasonableness was challenged - Held,
this is not a whole time employment done
by the incumbent as his source of
livelihood - The remuneration of Rs.
2500/- per month in the present day may
be far on the lower side, does not make it
arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 53)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Home Guards Welfare Association Vs St. of
H.P. & ors.; (2015) 6 SCC 247
2. Ram Nath Gupta (Home Guard No. 0384) &
ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2016 (7) ADJ 453
3. Special Appeal Defective No. 735 of 2016
decided on 06.12.2016
4. Chandrawati Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2021
(1) ADJ 59
5. Sabha Shanker Dube Vs Divisional Forest
Officer & ors.; (2019) 12 SCC 297
6. Deokinandan Vs Emperor Sulaiman; AIR 1936
All 753
7. People's Union for Democratic Rights & ors.
Vs U.O.I. & ors.; (1982) 3 SCC 235
8. St. of Punjab & ors. Vs Jagjit Singh & ors.;
(2017) 1 SCC 148
9. St. of Kerala Vs Naveena Prabhu; (2009) 3
SCC 649
10. St. of Mah. Vs Bhagwan; (2022) 4 SCC 193
11. St. of U.P. Vs Chandrawati Devi & ors.;
2021:AHC:26379-DB
12. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Putti Lal; (2006) 9 SCC
337
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This judgment will decide the
present writ petition and connected Writ-A
No.5771 of 2023. Since both the petitions
involve common questions of fact and law,
the facts and the case of parties shall be
noticed from Writ-A No.18956 of 2022,
which shall be treated as the leading case.

2. The petitioners are Village
Policemen, Chowkidars or Gram Prahari,
variously called from time to time, but
decidedly appointed to this office of some
antiquity
under
the
North-Western
Provinces Village and Road Police Act,
1873 (Act No. XVI of 1873) (for short, 'the
Act of 1873') and since repealed by the
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act,
2017 (Act No.4 of 2018) (for short, 'the
Amending Act of 2017'). The petitioners
are essentially Village Policemen, tracing
their origin to a time when the modern
police network had yet to gain foothold in
the wee days of the British Colonial
Government. At that time also, the Act of
1873 contemplated the position of the
'Village
Policemen'
and
the
'Road
Policemen' as extended arms of the regular
police establishment in the remote villages,
nooks and corners of the State, then called
the North-Western Provinces.

3. It appears that the Village
Policemen served an important role in the
day that this position was created and for a
long time thereafter. But, with the march of
time, particularly, post independence, big
strides
in
the
organization
and
establishment of the modern police system
were made. To add to it, were the great
technological advancements in the systems
of communication, quick transport and
surveillance. All these factors put together,
it seems, have made the position of the
Village Policemen or the Gram Prahari, as
they are now called, more or less
rudimentary. Nevertheless, the post has
been retained and there are incumbents,
who have some duties to perform under the
law.

4. The petitioners in the leading case
are 1487 in number, and those in the
connected matter, 31. Parties in the leading
petition have exchanged affidavits. The
leading case was admitted to hearing on
27.11.2024, which proceeded forthwith.
The connected matter too was heard on
27.11.2024, along with the leading case.
Judgment was reserved in both matters.

5. Heard Mr. Aditya Prakash Verma,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
P.K. Giri, learned Additional Advocate
5 All. Lavkush Tiwari & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1373
General assisted by Mr. Girijesh Kumar
Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

6. The question involved here is if the
Village Policemen are entitled to the grant
of minimum pay, to which, the Policemen
are entitled in the regular establishment of
the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is the
petitioners' case that they are working as
Village Policemen or Gram Prahari under
the State Government for decades. It is
illustratively said that petitioner No.2 is
working since the year 1987, i.e., almost 37
years. They, therefore, claim that a
mandamus be issued to the respondents to
grant them minimum wages applicable to
police personnel serving in the State of U.P.
in the regular establishment. The petitioners
receive honourarium for the services
rendered by them. They say that the
petitioners' work as Village Policemen or
Gram Prahari has been defined under
Sections 29 to 38 of Chapter IV of the
Oudh Laws Act, 1876 (Act No. XVIII of
1876) (for short, 'the Act of 1876') and
Paragraphs 89 to 92 of Chapter IX of the
Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations. These
Regulations also provide punishment for
any irregularities committed by the Village
Policemen.

7. The petitioners are presently posted
as Village Police/ Gram Prahari under the
respondents and working since a long time.
Their work is of a regular nature.
Therefore, they are entitled to the minimum
pay scale payable to the policemen in the
State of U.P. in the regular establishment on
principles enshrined under Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution. The petitioners were
earlier paid a sum of Rs.1500/- per month,
but vide order dated 08.03.2019, the
remuneration
has
been
enhanced
to
Rs.2500/- per month. This is a very meagre
amount, according to the petitioners, and
certainly by no means, enough to sustain
them in the present day economy. The State
is exploiting the petitioners by all means,
whereas the petitioners are discharging
their duties faithfully and regularly.

8. The petitioners represented their
cause from time to time since the year 2019
before the respondents, raising a grievance
that they are entitled to a minimum pay
scale in the regular cadre with better
service facilities. On these requests, in
whichever way these landed before the
State Law Commission, led the Law
Commission to consider all issues raised.
After examining the matter, the Law
Commission
submitted
their
recommendations on 03.12.2021 to the
State Government. More than three years
and a half have passed, since the Law
Commission made their recommendations,
but these have not been implemented or
even proceeded with by the Government
for implementation in the near future.

9. It is then pleaded on behalf of the
petitioners that similarly placed Village
Peon (Gram Chowkidar) in the States of
Jharkhand and Bihar have been granted
their due benefits vide notifications dated
07.04.2015 and 31.10.2016, where the
Village Chowkidar has been given the
status of a Class-IV employee in the service
of the State. They have been provided the
pay band of Rs.5200 - 20,200/- plus grade
pay of Rs.1800/-. The benefit was extended
retrospectively from the year 2006. There is
also parity sought to be drawn by the
petitioners from the case of Home Guards.
They were also retained on similar tenure
and meagre remuneration. However, in
view of the decision of the Supreme Court
in Home Guards Welfare Association v.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others,
1374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2015) 6 SCC 247, the petitioners urge that
they are entitled to a remuneration for all
the 30 days of the month, which would
work out to the minimum pay, that is paid
to police personnel of the State.

10. To support the same right on
analogy of the entitlement of Home
Guards, the petitioners rely on the decision
of a learned Judge of this Court in Ram
Nath Gupta (Home Guard No. 0384) and
others v. State of U.P. and others, 2016
(7) ADJ 453. This judgment was appealed
to the Division Bench, which affirmed it in
Special Appeal Defective No.735 of 2016,
decided on 06.12.2016, with the slight
modification
that
the
words
'Police
Constable' were substituted by the words
'Police Personnel'. The judgment of the
Division
Bench
in
Special
Appeal
Defective No. 735 of 2016 was challenged
by the State by means of SLP (C) No.2264
of 2017, but the Supreme Court dismissed
the SLP with a direction to provide all
consequential benefits. A clarification was
nevertheless made that there is no order
enabling the Home Guard to claim backwages in the minimum pay scale prior to
the High Court judgment. The State was
directed to pass orders in compliance
within eight weeks.

11. The petitioners seek to draw parity
from the case of the Home Guards. They
also seek to draw parity from the case of
cooks, that was considered by this Court in
Chandrawati Devi v. State of U.P. and
others, 2021 (1) ADJ 59, where cooks,
working under the mid-day-meal scheme in
schools, were being remunerated at the rate
of Rs.1000/- per month. Similar parity is
drawn from the case of Sabha Shanker
Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer and
others, (2019) 12 SCC 297, which related
to daily rated workers in Group-D posts
employed with the Forest Department of
the State of U.P. These employees, who
were remunerated on fixed wages per
month, were ordered to be paid the
minimum of the pay-scale applicable to the
regular employees, working on the same
post. The petitioners' case is that the work
and duties of the Village Policemen, under
the Act of 1873, and presently governed by
the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations,
clearly provide that Village Policemen are
associates of the Police. The nature of their
work is defined as vigilance. They are said
to be the third eye of the Police
Department. The petitioners say that they
are continuously discharging their duties,
but the State is discriminating against them
by not paying them the minimum wages, as
prescribed under the minimum pay scale, if
not by anything else, worked out in
accordance with the Minimum Wages Act,
1948. It is also the petitioners' case that
taking work from the petitioners on the
meagre sum of Rs.2500/- per mensem
amounts to the taking of begar prohibited
under Article 23 of the Constitution, apart
from discrimination, that is brought about
in
violation
of
Article
14
of
the
Constitution.

12. It is argued by Mr. Aditya Prakash
Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioners
that under the provisions of Paragraph 96
of the U.P. Police Regulations, the
appointment of the Village Policemen or
Gram Prahari, like the petitioners, is made
by the District Magistrate under Section 3
to 6 of the Act of 1873 or under Sections 29
to 32 of the Act of 1876. He submits that
the stand of the respondents is trite that the
Act of 1873 has been repealed by the
Amending Act of 2017, but the saving
clause in Section 4 of the Amending Act,
2017 protects the office or appointments
made before the repeal. In consequence,
5 All. Lavkush Tiwari & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1375
appointments of Gram Prahari made earlier
when the Act of 1873 was in force, would
continue to remain valid. It is then argued
that the provisions of the Act of 1876 are
still applicable and fresh appointments
regularly being made under Sections 29 to
32 of the Act last mentioned. A perusal of
the scheme of appointment, as it stood
under Sections 3 to 6 of the Act of 1873,
and, as it currently stands, under Sections
29 to 32 of the Act of 1876, clearly shows
that the power of appointment is with the
State Government, which, according to
Paragraph
96
of
the
U.P.
Police
Regulations, is exercised by the District
Magistrate. It is urged that even if it were
the State Government's case that persons,
who could make a nomination under the
Act of 1873, do not exist in the current
socio-economic circumstances, the fact that
the Act gives exclusive authority to the
State
Government,
in
default
of
nomination, as envisaged under Section 32
of the Act of 1876, to appoint a person after
due inquiry into his age, character and
ability, renders the submission of the State
Government one without substance.

13. As regards the Rules governing
service conditions of the petitioners, the
power to frame these was delegated to the
State Government, according to the learned
Counsel for the petitioners, under Section
39 of the Act of 1876, but till date, no
service rules have been made by the
Government. It is then said that insofar as
payment of wages to the petitioners is
concerned, the Village Policemen or the
Gram Prahari were remunerated at the rate
of Rs.1500/- per mensem, but by an order
dated 08.03.2019 issued by the Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Home,
Government
of
U.P.,
Lucknow,
the
remuneration
has
been
enhanced
to
Rs.2500/- per month along with certain
other facilities, detailed in the aforesaid
Government Order, to which we would
make allusion during the course of this
judgment.

14. It is then urged on behalf of the
petitioners that the term used in the
Government Order dated 08.03.2019 is
'Mandeya',
which
translates
to
honourarium, but the remuneration paid to
a Village Policemen or Gram Prahari,
mentioned in Paragraph 91 of the U.P.
Police
Regulations,
is
'Pay';
not
'honourarium'. It is next pointed out that if in the
discharge of functions by the Village Policeman
any misconduct is committed, affecting his
service under Section 10 of the Act of 1873 or
Section 73 of the Act of 1876, power is conferred
upon the District Magistrate to dismiss him. The
Village
Policemen
are
also
liable
to
imprisonment and/ or fine upon conviction by a
Magistrate under Section 11 of the Act of 1873
or Section 37 of the Act of 1876.

15. The next point, that is highlighted by
Mr. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is
that the duties of the petitioners have been
defined in Paragraphs 89 and 91 of the U.P.
Police Regulations and the same are traceable to
Section 34 of the Act of 1876 for the present, and
earlier, to Section 8 of the Act of 1873 before its
repeal. Paragraph 89 of the U.P. Police
Regulations, it is argued, provides that the chief
duty of a Village Policemen is to watch and ward
the village, of which he is in-charge. It is
submitted that when this provision is read with
Section 34 of the Act of 1876, it is clearly
established that the duties of the Village
Policemen or Gram Prahari are similar, if not
identical to the duties of Police Officers as
provided under Section 23 of the U.P. Police Act,
1861.

16. The learned Counsel for the
petitioners emphasizes that another set of
1376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
duties, that arise for the Village Policemen
are carried in Paragraph 91 of the U.P.
Police Regulations, wherein it is provided
that it would also be their duty to report
birth and death of people in their villages
and for the purpose, they are required to
report and attend at their police station
twice a month. It is said with much
emphasis by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners that the Act of 1873, as well as
the Act of 1876, clothe the Village
Policemen or Gram Prahari with the power
to arrest individuals in accordance with the
provisions of those Acts. In order to
establish that the petitioners are indeed
policemen,
learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners has harped upon to the authority
of a Full Bench of this Court in
Deokinandan v. Emperor Sulaiman, AIR
1936 All 753, where it was held by the Full
Bench that Village Policemen would be
considered police officers for the purpose
of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. He says that it was remarked there
that these Village Policemen are members
of the Police Force under Paragraph 373 of
the U.P. Police Regulations, as it stood
back in the day with the pari materia
provision being Paragraph 396 of the U.P.
Police Regulations.

17. It is next submitted that a moreful
survey of duties of the Village Policemen
would necessitate a look at Paragraphs 245,
257, 260, 261, 267 and 273, amongst
others, of the U.P. Police Regulations. It is
urged that a very interesting point, as the
learned Counsel for the petitioners would
put it, common to all these provisions, is
the fact that duties assigned to the Village
Policemen for their villages, are the same
as those assigned to the Beat Constable in
the Police Establishment in urban areas. It
is emphasized that these duties further
strengthen the petitioners' case about them
discharging police functions. It is also
revealed that all these duties have an
essence of time and, therefore, quick
judgment.

18. The argument is that these duties
of a Village Policeman all show that the
State's submission that the petitioners work
only two days a month is ill-founded. The
petitioners continuously work shoulder to
shoulder along with the Police Forces to
ensure maintenance of law and order. The
attention of the Court is invited to the duty
charts attached at Page No.35 onwards in
the rejoinder affidavit, specially the one at
Page No.39, which provides for a month
long duty description. It is also argued that
in view of the provisions of Paragraph 396
of the U.P. Police Regulations, the
petitioners are clearly part of the Police
Force and Section 47 of the Police Act,
1861 prescribes that the Village Policemen
would be under the authority of the District
Superintendent of Police, subject to the
general control of the Magistrate of the
District. It is also pointed out that orders
have been issued to the petitioners by the
Station House Officer, calling them to work
on specific occasions at specified places. In
this regard, our attention has been drawn to
Page No.35 and onwards of the rejoinder
affidavit.

19. It is argued that the case of the
State Government pleaded in paragraph
No.16 of the Additional Chief Secretary's
personal affidavit, that the Government are
of opinion that the petitioners are provided
adequate honourarium in the sum of
Rs.2500/-, because they work only two
days a month, is factually and legally
flawed. The reason for the fallacy in the
State's
submission,
according
to
the
petitioners, is that Paragraph 91 of the U.P.
Police Regulations, which provides for
5 All. Lavkush Tiwari & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1377
reporting of births and deaths in the village
requires the petitioners to attend at the
police station twice a month, which is one
of their secondary duties. Their primary
duty is one arising from Paragraph 89 of
the U.P. Police Regulations and Section 34
of the Act of 1876 or Section 8 of the Act
of 1873. The duties under the aforesaid
paragraph are onerous and referable to
sovereign functions of the State, which
cannot possibly be discharged, working two
days in a month. It requires continuous
detection of crime and movement of
habitual
offenders,
besides
immediate
intimation of the same to higher officials. It
is also said that the entire intelligence of
the Police Department is dependent on the
establishment of the Village Policemen. It
is next said that the honourarium or pay of
Rs.2500/- a month, paid to the petitioners,
cannot be considered enough to keep their
body and soul together, as also of their
family.

20. There is a reference then made by
the learned Counsel for the petitioners to
the latest notification dated 16.05.2024,
prescribing the minimum wages issued
under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
There Rs.410/- per day is mandated for
unskilled workers, Rs.451/- for semiskilled and Rs.505/- for skilled workers.
The employers are duty bound to comply
with the rates of wages carried in the
notification. The State Government, which
is considered to be a model employer, as
the petitioners say, find it convenient to pay
a measly sum of Rs.83.30 per day (the
daily rate of wage worked out on the pay of
Rs.2500/- per month).

21. Learned Counsel for the petitioners
has relied upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in People's Union for Democratic
Rights and others v. Union of India and
others, (1982) 3 SCC 235, calling our
attention to paragraph Nos.12 to 15 of the
report. He has particularly referred to
Chandrawati
Devi
(supra).
These
authorities have been relied upon by the
petitioners to support their right to minimum
wages. Reliance is also placed upon the
principle laid down by the Supreme Court in
State of Punjab and others v. Jagjit Singh
and others, (2017) 1 SCC 148, where also,
the right to receive minimum wages,
according to the petitioners, has been
regarded as a constitutional mandate. It is, in
the last, submitted that the petitioners' case is
on a better footing than that of the Home
Guards, since the latter are not members of
the Police Force and employed only to
discharge duties, when called out to do so.
Nevertheless, the Court has granted them
protection in Ram Nath Gupta (supra) and
Home Guards Welfare Association (supra),
entitling them to remuneration for all the 30
days a month and a fortiori the minimum pay
received by police personnel of the State.

22. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the Additional Chief Secretary
(Home), which is his personal affidavit, the
stand is that the Village Policemen or Gram
Prahari are being paid honourarium and given
other facilities as per rules prescribed by the
Government in terms of the Government
Order dated 08.03.2019 and in Paragraphs 90
and 91 of Chapter IX of the U.P. Police
Regulations. It is averred that the petitioners
are being provided adequate honourarium
and other facilities in proportion to the work
done by them. They are required to work only
two days in a month and free to do any other
work for gain, that is to say, agriculture or
local business.

23. A similar stand has been taken by
the Director General of Police in the
counter affidavit filed by him. There is a
1378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent No.3, which also takes the same
stand as the Additional Chief Secretary.

24. Mr. P.K. Giri, learned Additional
Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Girijesh
Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel, submits that the Village
Policemen or Gram Prahari are not, in any
way, members of the Police Force of the
State. He has called attention of the Court
to the definition of 'Police' under Section 1
of the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861), where
it is defined in the following terms:

"the word "Police" shall include
all persons who shall be enrolled under this
Act;"

25. The learned Additional Advocate
General has next invited attention to
Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861, which
provides the constitution of the Police
Force as follows:

"2. Constitution of the force:-
The entire police-establishment under a
State Government shall, for the purposes of
this Act, be deemed to be one police-force
and shall be formally enrolled; and shall
consist of such number of officers and men,
and shall be constituted in such manner, as
shall from time to time be ordered by the
State Government.

Subject to the provisions of this
Act, the pay and all other conditions of
service of members of the subordinate
ranks of any police-force shall be such as
may
be
determined
by
the
State
Government."

26. Mr. Giri submits that the functions
performed by Village Policemen are in the
nature of an auxiliary role, assisting the
local administration with village level
surveillance. Their duties are limited to
reporting twice a month - once for
submitting their reports and the second for
collecting their honourarium. By no means,
the
responsibilities
of
the
Village
Policemen are equivalent to those in the
regular establishment of the Police. It is
pointed out that the honourarium for the
Village Policemen was initially fixed at
Rs.1500/- per mensem vide Government
Order
No.
1393P/Ch-Pu-6-12-1CM/12
dated 24.09.2012. It was subsequently
enhanced to Rs.2500/- per mensem vide
Government Order No. 45/2019/490P/ChPu-6-2019-01-CM/ 2012 dated 08.03.2019.
This honourarium is proportionate to the
limited duties and responsibilities, that fall
on the shoulders of the petitioners. The
Government Order dated 08.03.2019, it is
submitted, has not been challenged in
Court. It is acknowledged that the Law
Commission headed by Mr. Justice A.N.
Mittal, a former Judge of this Court, was
asked to recommend on matters, relating to
appointment,
service
conditions,
responsibilities and social security etc., for
the Village Policemen in the State of U.P.
In due course, the Law Commission have
submitted their recommendations to the
Government. The recommendations are
still under consideration of the Government
and no rights can be founded on these.

27. Mr. Giri has relied on the
authority of the Supreme Court in State of
Kerala v. Naveena Prabhu, (2009) 3 SCC
649 to say that the Supreme Court has held
there that Courts should exercise restraint
in issuing directions relating to financial
and policy matters, as these essentially fall
within the domain of the executive. To the
same end, the learned Additional Advocate
General has relied on the authority of the
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v.
Bhagwan, (2022) 4 SCC 193. It is
5 All. Lavkush Tiwari & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1379
emphasized by the learned Additional
Advocate General that the work of Village
Policemen is limited to two days a month,
as already said, and they are free to engage
in other occupations, such as agriculture or
business. The honourarium provided to
them is adequate for the duties they
perform. He submits that the petitioners'
demand for regularization and minimum
wages is utterly untenable.

28. We have carefully considered the
rival submissions advanced on behalf of
both parties and perused the record.

29. It is, no doubt, true that the
Village Policemen or Gram Prahari are not
enrolled members of the Police under the
Police Act. They are described under the
U.P.
Police
Regulations
as
Village
Chowkidar. Nevertheless, they are regarded
under Paragraph 396 of the U.P. Police
Regulations as one of the bodies of the
Police Force. Paragraph 396 reads:

"396. Bodies of the police force.- The
Police Force consists of the following
bodies :

1
Provincial
Police, Civil
Armed
and
Mounted
Appointed
and
enrolled under Act V
of 1861
2
Government
Railway
Police
Appointed in Agra
under Act XVI of
1873 and in Oudh
under Act XVII of
1876.
3
Village
chaukidars
Not enrolled under
Act V of 1861"

30. Paragraph 396 of the U.P. Police
Regulations makes it apparent that though
part of the body of men comprising the
Police Force of the State, the Village
Chaukidar are not enrolled members. They
trace their appointment to statutes of
antiquity, that is to say, the Act of 1873 and
the Act of 1876, one of which, as already
noticed, has been repealed in the year 2017.
The duties of the Village Policemen or
chaukidar, as they are called under the U.P.
Police Regulations, can be had an idea of,
upon a perusal of Paragraphs 89, 90, 245,
257, 260, 261, 267 and 273. These
paragraphs of the U.P. Police Regulations
read:

"89. Chief duty of village
chaukidar.- The village chaukidar is a
village servant, whose chief duty is the
watch and ward of the villages in his
charge. He is required to carry reports for
the village headman to assist him in tracing
offenders, and to make arrests as authorized
by law. He is responsible to the District
Magistrate for the due performance of his
duties. The rules relating to village
headman are in the Manual of Government
Orders.

90. Freeships to Chaukidar.-
Village Chaukidars are not prohibited from
cultivating land; they must reside in one of
the villages for which they are responsible.
They must be employed on menial duties
by members of the constabulary force.

245. Names of history sheeter
will be entered in beat book of constables
and crime record book of village
chaukidars.- The names of all historysheet men will be entered in notice-books
of beat constables and in the crime record
book of village chaukidars. All visits by
officer and men to village in which bad
characters reside will be shown in the flysheet of the village crime note-books and
an entry in the fly-sheet will indicate that
all class A history sheet men in the village
have been visited. A full note showing the
result of these visits will be made in the
1380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
general diary, with a reference to the
number of the general diary report in the
fly sheet, when anything of importance is
ascertained a brief note will also be made
in the history-sheet. In cities a separate flysheet on which visits of the suspect will be
recorded should be attached to each
history-sheet.

Note.- Fly sheet is also known as
the index of surveillance of history
sheeters.

257.
Movement
of
history
sheeter should be informed by beat
constable or village chaukidar to S.O. -
It is the duty of the village chaukidar or
beat constable (in towns) whenever a bad
character on a history-sheet leaves his
home, immediately to inform the officer-incharge of the police station of his departure
and his destination, if known.

260. Visit of history sheeter
within circle, be verified by inquiry
through beat constable- When a bad
character leaves his home for an unusual or
suspicious destination within the circle of
which he is a resident, the report of the
constable or chaukidar will be entered in
the general diary and the visit will be
verified as soon as possible by inquiry
through a constable or from the chaukidar
of the village to which the bad character is
alleged to have gone.

261.
Reports
made
by
chaukidars
of
departure
of
bad
characters- Reports made by chaukidars of
departures of bad characters (1) to a
destination outside the circle, (2) to an
unusual destination within the circle (3) to
an unknown destination, (4) at night will be
recorded in the general diary, and a
reference to the number and date of every
such report will be entered in the
chaukidar's crime record book in the
column provided for the purpose after each
suspect's name.

267. Duty of village chaukidar
when he hears of the arrival of a
suspicious stranger in his village- If the
village chaukidar hears of the arrival of a
suspicious stranger in his village he will
question him regarding his antecedents and
residence and will send or take to the police
station as quickly as possible all the
information so obtained.

273. Where a telephone is
available inquiry slips will not ordinarily
be despatched- The duties assigned to
chaukidars in rural areas will be performed
in cities and towns by the police. Where a
telephone is available, inquiry slips will not
ordinarily be despatched, but the telephone
will be used whenever reports of arrival or
departure are received, such reports being
recorded in the general diary or departure
are received, such reports being recorded in
the general diary and inquiry slips being
prepared for purpose of record. Replies
received by telephone will similarly be
entered in the general diary and on the
inquiry slip. City inspectors and officer-incharge of city police stations will be
responsible for seeing that files of inquiry
slips are kept up-to-date and that replies are
promptly given to telephone inquiries. Any
delay of more than 24 hours in replying by
telephone
to
an
inquiry
about
the
movement of a bad character should at
once be reported to the city inspector."

31. How much or how many of these
duties that are enjoined under the above
quoted paragraphs of the U.P. Police
Regulations, now fall on the shoulders of
the Village Policemen, is a matter of not
much controversy. A look at the duties,
prescribed for the Village Policemen, does
not show them to be very relevant in the
modern age. Their chief duty is described
in Regulation 89 as watch and ward of the
villages in their charge. One of the other
5 All. Lavkush Tiwari & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1381
duties is to carry reports for the village
headman, assist him in tracing offenders
and make arrests, as authorized by law. In
the contemporary society, we have a
system of an elected Panchayat and a
three
tier
Panchayatiraj
with
constitutional status. There is no village
headman in the sense understood in the
day, when Paragraph 89 of the U.P. Police
Regulations was made. Hardly anyone
would trust a Village Policemen or a
Gram Prahari to make arrests for the law.
In the modern world, arresting an
offender has almost become a technically
trained job, involving matters of personal
security of the arresting officer, the safety
and security of those around and also of
the
person
arrested.
There
are
complicated rules of arrest to be followed
with intricate guidelines laid down by the
Constitutional Courts.

32. The attendance at the police
station for the Village Policemen twice a
month is to report on births and deaths.
The registration of births and deaths in
villages, nowadays, no longer remains a
matter
of
police
surveillance. With
growing education and the requirements
of various records necessary to be part of
modern rural life, the family have to get
their births and deaths registered under
the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,
1969, with whosoever be the designated
officer.

33. In the village, the function to
record births and deaths rests with the
Gram Panchayat. Chapter IV of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act
of 1947') relates to powers, duties,
functions and administration of Gram
Panchayat. Section 15 is concerned with
functions of Gram Panchayat. Section 15
(xxiii) reads:

"15.
Functions
of
Gram
Panchayat - Subject to such conditions as
may be specified by the State Government,
from time to time, a Gram Panchayat shall
perform the following functions, namely -

xxiii- Medical and sanitation

(a) Promoting rural sanitation.

(b) Prevention against epidemics.

(c) Programmes of human and
animal vaccination.

(d) Preventive actions against
stray cattle and live stock.

(e) Registering births, deaths, and
marriages."

34. In order to further the aforesaid
functions of the Gram Panchayat, the
Government have framed U.P. Panchayati
Raj Act (Maintenance of Family Registers)
Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules of 1970')
in the exercise of powers under Section 110
of the Act of 1947. It envisages the
maintenance of a family register in Form A,
carrying family-wise names and particulars
of all persons ordinarily residing in the
village, pertaining to the Gaon Sabha. Rule
2 says that ordinarily one page shall be
allotted to each family in the register. It is
provided by Rule 3 that every person, who
has been ordinarily residing within the area
of the Gaon Sabha, shall be entitled to be
registered in the family register. There is a
provision for quarterly entries in the family
register in Rule 4. It mandates that at the
beginning of each quarter, commencing
April of a year, the Secretary of the Gaon
Sabha is obliged to make necessary
changes in the family register, consequent
upon births and deaths, if any, that have
occurred in the previous quarter in each
family. Such changes shall be laid before
the next meeting of the Gram Panchayat for
information. There is then Rule 5 of the
Rules of 1970, which invests the Assistant
Development Officer (Panchayat), on an
1382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application made to him, with power to
order the correction of any existing entry in
the family register. The Secretary of the
Gaon Sabha is obliged to carry out the
orders made by the Assistant Development
Officer (Panchayat) on these applications.

35. The new statutory regime under
the Act of 1947, would show that the
reporting and registration of births and
deaths in a village is now almost the
exclusive province of the Gaon Sabha. The
onerous duty of reporting every death and
birth in the village placed on the shoulders
of a Village Policemen under the U.P.
Police Regulations does not seem to have
much purpose. During the hearing too,
nothing was pointed out that each birth and
death in the village was at all a matter of
such important police intelligence that
every child entering the world and every
person exiting it, must be known to the
Police Station immediately, and a fortiori,
the District Superintendent of Police. There
does not appear much to this function of
the Village Policemen or Gram Prahari or
Village Chaukidar, now to be performed.
The entire provision on reporting of the
movement of history-sheeters and bad
characters, as mentioned in Paragraphs 245,
257,
260,
261
and
surveillance
of
suspicious strangers in the village, may still
be part of the police intelligence, but in the
modern world, equipped with far better
systems of surveillance on suspicious
characters, let alone history-sheeters, the
role of the Village Policemen seems to be
marginal.

36. There is another aspect of the
matter, which was argued with much
vehemence on behalf of the State. It was
said that in the modern policing system,
there is a great expansion of the policing
network into the rural areas, with rural
police stations being established in much
higher number in each district. They have
their chowki in remoter corners. There is a
better road linkage to most villages and far
better transport for the movement of the
police to remote village areas. In addition,
there are certain very new facilities that
have come up with contemporary policing,
like the 'Dial-112' facility, which is a
mobile police squad to reach out any kind
of emergency.