# Rajeev Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 742
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-03
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 2829 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajeev-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50740
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 14 - Equality before law - Parity in
remuneration - PRD Jawans and Home
Guards - Performing similar duties as
auxiliaries to police - Same mode of
appointment - Differential treatment in
allowances - Not justified - Violation of
Article 14 established.
Petitioners, being members of Prantiya Rakshak
Dal (PRD) under the U.P. Prantiya Rakshak Dal
Act, 1948, claimed parity in daily remuneration
with Home Guards appointed under the U.P.
Home Guards Adhiniyam, 1963. It was found
that both categories performed analogous duties
for maintaining public order and were appointed
via similar selection processes. PRD Jawans
were paid Rs.395/- per day as against Rs.500/-
paid to Home Guards. The St.'s defence of
distinct departmental structures and fiscal
limitations was held arbitrary. The Court held
such discrimination to be violative of Article 14
in absence of intelligible differentia.

B. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 23 - Prohibition of forced labour -
PRD Jawans paid below minimum wages -
Held, amounts to forced labour.
The Court held that paying PRD Jawans less
than the prescribed minimum wage for Class-IV
employees amounted to forced labour under
Article 23 of the Constitution. Relying on
People's Union for Democratic Rights Vs U.O.I.,
(1982) 3 SCC 235, it was reiterated that
economic compulsion resulting in acceptance of
9 All. Rajeev Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
743
work for less than minimum wage constitutes
forced labour.

C.
Precedents
-
Binding
effect
-
Applicability of Supreme Court decision -
Minimum pay parity with police personnel
- Directions issued accordingly.
Relying on the decision in Grah Rakshak, Home
Guards Welfare Association Vs St. of H.P.,
(2015) 6 SCC 247, the Court directed the St. to
recalculate PRD Jawans' remuneration ensuring
that the total monthly pay equals the minimum
monthly salary of police constables. Directions
were also issued to ensure parity in allowances
with Home Guards.

People's Union for Democratic Rights Vs
U.O.I.,

(1982) 3 SCC 235 : AIR 1982 SC 1473

Bench: Bhagwati, Pathak & Reddy, JJ.

Held: Payment of less than minimum wages
amounts to "forced labour" under Article 23 of
the Constitution.

Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare
Association Vs St. of Himachal Pradesh,

(2015) 6 SCC 247 : AIR 2015 SC 1952

Bench: T.S. Thakur & R. Banumathi, JJ.

Held: Home Guards discharging duties similar to
police personnel are entitled to parity in wages;
St.s cannot deny remuneration under the guise
of honorary service.

## Text

742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
weighed with the Courts below in granting
specific performance, though they might
not have scripted their reasons for the
exercise of that discretion. As already said,
it may always be desirable for the Court to
give reasons why specific performance was
granted because the exercise of discretion
is subject to scrutiny by the Appellate
Court, but it is not imperative. It is not
imperative to give reasons, howsoever
desirable, for the cause that if from the
evidence considered by the Courts below
and on record, the relevant factors to
exercise discretion the way it is done by the
Court are there, holding the decree to be
vitiated on the ground alone that reasons
have not been mentioned, would be more
of a formality than anything substantial.

67. Substantial Question of Law (2) is
therefore, answered in the negative.

68. No other point was pressed.

69. This appeal fails and is dismissed
with costs throughout. The sum of money
deposited with the Trial Court by the
defendant in compliance with the interim
order dated 04.05.2001 shall be paid to the
plaintiff forthwith, together with the
accrued interest paid by the Bank, where it
is invested.

70. Let a decree be drawn up,
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 742
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-A No. 2829 of 2022
And
Writ-A No. 1527 of 2021
And
Writ-A No.1216 of 2021
And
Writ-A No. 11308 of 2021

Rajeev Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 14 - Equality before law - Parity in
remuneration - PRD Jawans and Home
Guards - Performing similar duties as
auxiliaries to police - Same mode of
appointment - Differential treatment in
allowances - Not justified - Violation of
Article 14 established.
Petitioners, being members of Prantiya Rakshak
Dal (PRD) under the U.P. Prantiya Rakshak Dal
Act, 1948, claimed parity in daily remuneration
with Home Guards appointed under the U.P.
Home Guards Adhiniyam, 1963. It was found
that both categories performed analogous duties
for maintaining public order and were appointed
via similar selection processes. PRD Jawans
were paid Rs.395/- per day as against Rs.500/-
paid to Home Guards. The St.'s defence of
distinct departmental structures and fiscal
limitations was held arbitrary. The Court held
such discrimination to be violative of Article 14
in absence of intelligible differentia.

B. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 23 - Prohibition of forced labour -
PRD Jawans paid below minimum wages -
Held, amounts to forced labour.
The Court held that paying PRD Jawans less
than the prescribed minimum wage for Class-IV
employees amounted to forced labour under
Article 23 of the Constitution. Relying on
People's Union for Democratic Rights Vs U.O.I.,
(1982) 3 SCC 235, it was reiterated that
economic compulsion resulting in acceptance of
9 All. Rajeev Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
743
work for less than minimum wage constitutes
forced labour.

C.
Precedents
-
Binding
effect
-
Applicability of Supreme Court decision -
Minimum pay parity with police personnel
- Directions issued accordingly.
Relying on the decision in Grah Rakshak, Home
Guards Welfare Association Vs St. of H.P.,
(2015) 6 SCC 247, the Court directed the St. to
recalculate PRD Jawans' remuneration ensuring
that the total monthly pay equals the minimum
monthly salary of police constables. Directions
were also issued to ensure parity in allowances
with Home Guards.

People's Union for Democratic Rights Vs
U.O.I.,

(1982) 3 SCC 235 : AIR 1982 SC 1473

Bench: Bhagwati, Pathak & Reddy, JJ.

Held: Payment of less than minimum wages
amounts to "forced labour" under Article 23 of
the Constitution.

Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare
Association Vs St. of Himachal Pradesh,

(2015) 6 SCC 247 : AIR 2015 SC 1952

Bench: T.S. Thakur & R. Banumathi, JJ.

Held: Home Guards discharging duties similar to
police personnel are entitled to parity in wages;
St.s cannot deny remuneration under the guise
of honorary service.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1 . All the above noted writ petitions
are being decided by means of this
common order. For the sake of convenience
Writ - A No.2829 of 2022 is being taken
up as a leading case.

2. The petitioner in all the writ
petitions are selected and are posted in
Prantiya Rakshak Dal (PRD) in several
districts and seek parity in terms of the
benefits as are being paid to Home Guards
appointed in a manner similar to the
petitioners and under the provisions of an
Act, which is similar being The Uttar
Pradesh Home Guards Adhiniyam, 1963.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the
petitioners were selected and posted in the
Prantiya Rakshak Dal in terms of the
mandate of United Provinces Rakshak Dal
Act, 1948 as amended. It is argued that the
said Prantiya Rakshak Dal was enacted in
the year 1948 for constitution of a force
known as 'U.P. Prantiya Rakshal Dal/Vikas
Dal' for the preservation of public peace,
training of men in the use of arms inculcate
self-help and discipline and the protection
of the life of community and property
within the Uttar Pradesh.

4. It is argued that on the similar lines,
an act known as 'Uttar Pradesh Home
Guards Adhiniyam Adhiniyam, 1963' was
enacted for providing for constitution of a
force known as Uttar Pradesh Home
Guards for utilizing their services for duties
in the time of emergency and serving as an
auxiliary to the police for the maintenance
of land and order. It is argued that although
the Act provide for creation of Rakshak
Dal/Vikas Dal for preservation of public
peace and training of men in arms as an
auxiliary force, however, their services are
availed during normal time also and during
local or national emergency. It is argued
that even a dress is prescribed for the
members of the Dal. It is argued that the
Prantiya Rakshal Dal comes under the
Yuwa Welfare Department of the State
Government and is called as 'Pradeshik
Vikas Dal' and several government orders
have been issued from time to time
regarding providing the duty and payment
to the members of the said Dal. Attention
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has been drawn to the Government Orders
issued to the District Magistrate as
contained in Annexure - 2 to the writ
petition.

5. The petitioners in all the petitions
have undergone the required training and
have obtained the certificate and are
discharging their duties time to time
whenever required to do so by the
government. Reliance is also placed on the
government orders issued regarding the
duties and conduct of the members of the
Dal. It is argued that the Home Guards
appointed under the Uttar Pradesh Home
Guards Adhiniyam as well as the once
under the Prantiya Rakshak Dal were being
paid daily duty allowance at the same rate
at Rs.126/- per day till 2009, however, in
the year 2010, the allowance payable to the
Home Guards Jawans were increased to
Rs.140/- per day and further to Rs.210/- in
the year 2013 and subsequently, it has been
further enhanced, however, the members of
the Prantiya Rakshak Dal continued to get
Rs.126/- till the year 2013. The petitioners
approached
the
State
Government
requesting that when the nature of the
work, the manner of appointment is similar,
the remuneration payable to them should be
similar
to
Home
Guard
volunteers,
however, the same has not been done citing
the problems of budgetary allocations. It is
argued that the allowance payable to Home
Guard Jawans was increased to Rs.500/- on
27.08.2018 from Rs.375/- being paid
earlier, however, no such action was taken
in respect of the Prantiya Rakshak Dal
Jawans.

6. Aggrieved against the said, some of
the persons similarly situated approached
this Court by filing Writ - A No.17684 of
2018 (Amar Singh & 4 Ors. v. State of U.P.
& Anr.). The said writ petition was
disposed off on 07.01.2019 with directions
to the State Government to consider the
grievances and to evaluate the same within
a period of three months. As the directions
given by the Court were not complied with,
contempt petition was filed. In terms of the
said directions, ultimately an order came to
be passed on 01.05.2019 increasing the
allowances payable to the Prantiya Rakshak
Dal Jawan of Rs.375/- per day from earlier
Rs.250/- per day. Grievances of the
petitioners still continued without any
rationale basis, the petitioners have been
discriminated, as such, the present petitions
have been filed.

7. In view of the facts as narrated and
recorded in the writ petitions, the entire
petitions are premised on the allegation of
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.

8. To test the said argument, it is
essential to notice the manner in which the
two Acts have been enacted. The same are
as under:

The Uttar Pradesh
Prantiya
Rakshak
Dal/Vikas Dal Act
was enacted in the
year 1948 with a
view to constitute a
force
for
the
preservation
of
public peace.

Functions
of
Prantiya
Rakshak
Dal were described
as under:

"5. A member of
the
Prantiya
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Home
Guards
Adhiniyam
was
enacted in the year
1963 for constitution
of a force and for
utilizing its services in
the
times
of
emergency
as
an
auxiliary to the police
for maintaining law
and order.
Functions of Home
Guards are described
as under:

"4. The Home Guards
9 All. Rajeev Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
745
Rakshal Dal/Vikas
Dal
when
called
upon to do so by
the
prescribed
authority,
shall
discharge
such
functions in relation
to the preservation
of public peace and
for the protection of
inhabitants and the
security of property
in such area within
the Uttar Pradesh as
such
prescribed
authority
may
direct."

Powers, protection
and control etc., are
defined as under:

7.(1)
For
the
enforcement of the
provision of this act
or
any
rule
or
regulation
made
thereunder
every
member
of
the
Prantiya
Rakshal
Dal/Vikas
Dal
shall, when on duty
or called for duty,
be deemed to be a
police officer and
subject
to
any
terms,
conditions
and restrictions as
may be prescribed,
to have and be
subject to, in so far
as
it
is
not
inconsistent
with
this Act, all the
powers, privileges,
will
have
the
following functions:-

(a) they will serve as
auxiliary to the police,
and
when
required
help in maintaining
public
order
and
internal security;

(b) they will help the
community
in
air
raids,
fires,
floods,
epidemics and other
emergencies;

(c) they will function
as an emergency force
for such special tasks
as may be prescribed;

(d) they will provide
functional units for
essential services; and

(e) they will perform
such
other
duties
relating
to
any
measure
of
public
welfare as may be
prescribed.

Powers, privileges and
protection of Home
Guards are defined as
under:

9. (1)Subject to the
provisions of this Act
and the rules made
thereunder, a home
guard when called out
under section 8 to
serve as auxiliary to
the police or to help in
liabilities
and
protections,
as
a
police officer duly
appointed has or his
subject to by virtue
of the Police Act,
1861 (save section
29 thereof), or of
any other law for
the time being in
force.

(2) No prosecution
shall be instituted
against a member
of
the
Prantiya
Rakshal Dal/Vikas
Dal in respect of
anything done or
purported
to
be
done by him in
discharge
of
his
functions as such
member,
except
with the previous
sanction
of
the
authority prescribed
in that behalf.

(3)
The
superintendence of
the force in an area
shall vest in such
officer or officers
as
may
be
appointed by the
State Government.

Period of service
and discharge are
defined as under:

8. Every member of
the
Prantiya
maintaining
public
order
or
internal
security, shall have the
same
powers.
privileges
and
protection
as
a
member of the police
force appointed under
any enactment for the
time being in force,
and shall subject to
such adaptations and
modifications, as may
be made therein by the
State Government by
notification
in
the
Gazette. be subject to
the provisions of the
Police Act. 1861. and
the
rules
or
regulations
made
thereunder in the same
manner and to the
same extent as he
would. if such home
guard
held
a
responding rank in the
police force to the one
he holds for the time
being in the Home
Guards.

(2)
No
prosecution
shall
he
instituted
against a home guard
in respect of anything
done or purporting to
be done by him in the
discharge of his duty
as
a
home
guard.
except
with
the
previous sanction of
the District Magistrate
having
jurisdiction
over the area in which
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rakshak Dal/Vikas
Dal
shall
be
required to serve
the
State
Government
for
such period as may
be prescribed. He
shall thereafter be
called up for duty at
any time during a
further period as
may be prescribed.
After the expiry of
such further period
the member shall be
deemed
to
have
been
discharged
from the Prantiya
Rakshak Dal/Vikas
Dal.
the home guard was
enrolled or in which
the
act
was
committed.

Liability for services
is defined as under:

11. (1) Subject to any
rules made in this
behalf, a home guard
shall be bound to
serve in any unit of
the Home Guards to
which he is. for the
time being attached.

(2) The initial period
during which a home
guard may be required
to serve shall be three
years from the date of
his enrolment. This
period
may
be
extended
with
his
consent recorded in
the prescribed manner.

(3) Every home guard
shall
be
liable
to
serve, when called out
in
the
prescribed
manner, for duty in
any part of the State.
No home guard shall
be required to render
service
outside
the
State unless he has
given his consent in
the prescribed manner
for such service.

(4) The home guards
called out for duty
may be paid such
allowances as may be
prescribed.

(5) The home guards
will
ordinarily
be
called out to serve in
the
areas
of
their
enrolment and only
for part-time duty.

9. Section 9 of the The Uttar Pradesh
Prantiya Rakshak Dal/Vikas Dal Act
provides for the offences and has made it
an offence if a person selected does not
report for duty or neglects or refuse to obey
the order or deserts his duty or contravenes
any provision.

"9. Any member of the Prantiya
Rakshal Dal/Vikas Dal who-

(a) fails to report himself when
called up for duty under Section 5, or

(b)
without
sufficient
excuse
neglects or refuses to obey the orders of
this superior officer or fails to discharge
his functions as a member of the Prantiya
Rakshak Dal/Vikas Dal while on duty, or

(c) deserts his duty or

(d) contravenes any provision of
the Rles & Regulations made under this
Act,

Shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three months, or with fine which may
extend to five hundred rupees, or with
both."

10. Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh
Home Guards Adhiniyam is almost pari
materia and provides for penalties, if the
9 All. Rajeev Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
747
Home Guard fail to report for duty or
deserts or refuses or neglects to obey the
order.

Both the Acts are silent with
regard
to
payment
of
remuneration/compensation for the duties
rendered by the volunteers.

11. In the light of the similarities as
pointed out above, it is clear that the
volunteers are appointed by the State
Government. The nature of functions are
almost similar, the rigours of following the
orders
etc.,
are
similar.
Thus,
the
submission of learned counsel that for all
practical purposes they are similar and thus,
should be paid the allowances which are
similar and they claim parity with the
Home Guards Jawans in respect of their
employment.

12. The State Government on the
other hand has filed a counter affidavit in
Writ - A No.1527 of 2021, which is treated
as a counter affidavit in all the cases. In
Paras - 9 & 10 of the counter affidavit, the
following has been submitted in rebuttal to
the averments made by the petitioner:

"9. That the services of PRD
personnel's are governed by PRD Act and
Rules, 1948. The sanction of engagement of
PRD personnel's are granted by the State
government on the demand of district
administration on the basis of available
funds sanctioned. So far as the fixation of
duty allowances of the PRD personnel's at
par with the personnel's of home guards is
concern, it is submitted that government of
Uttar Pradesh has established two separate
departments
for
Home
Guards
and
Prantiya
Rakshak
Dal.
Both
the
departments have separate acts and rules.
Although the nature of work of both the
departments are likely be similar but as the
both the departments are different and
government decide the rate of both the
departments
as
per
available
funds
sanctioned
by
the
government.
The
government has recently increased the
Duty Allowances from Rs.375 to Rs. 395/-
per
day
of
PRD
personnel's
vide
government order dated 06.01.2022.

10. That government of UP has
established two separate departments for
Home Guards and Prantiya Rakshak Dal.
Both the departments have separate acts
and rules. Although the nature of work of
both the departments are likely be similar
but as the both the departments are
different and the government has decided
the Charge of both the departments as per
available
funds
sanctioned
by
the
government.
The
government
has
sanctioned Rs.395/- per day as allowances
for the PRD personnel's vide government
order dated 06.01.2022 and according the
compensation and allowances of PRD
personnel's have been given."

13. Interestingly, in Para - 11, the
State Government has stated as under:

"11. That in continuation of the
same, the Directorate vide his No.239/Ek129/PRD/2019 dated 09.07.2020, referring
to
his
earlier
letters
regarding
enhancement of Daily Compensation and
allowances of PRD personnel's as Rs.500/-
per day by annexing the order passed by
this Hon'ble Court, requested to the
government to take decision on this policy
matter and take appropriate decision and
in continuation of the same, the government
vide
letter
No.975/fifty-YU.KA./2020102(PVD)/1988 dated 17.09.2020 informed
that
vide
417/Fifty-YU.KA.-2019102(PVD)/1988 dated 08.03.2019 the rate
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of compensation and allowances of PRD
personnel's has been sanctioned and
enchased to Rs.375/- per day from Rs.250/-
per day as such after 1 year 5 months of
enhancement of daily allowances of PRD
personnel's does not seems to be logical.
Accordingly, by the letter of directorate
dated 25.09.2020, this matter has been
decided."

14. Thus, from the stand taken by the
State Government as reflected in the
counter affidavit and quoted herein above,
the stand is that although the nature of
working performed by the two are similar,
since they are working under different
departments, the payments are as per the
availability of funds sanctioned by the
government.

15. It is essential to note that this
Court while deciding Writ - A No.47479 of
2015 was confronted with the issue raised
by the soldiers of the Home Guards who
was claiming parity in terms of pay scale as
was being provided to the regular police
personnel, and this Court delivered the
judgment on 08.07.2016 following the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Grah Rakshak, Home Guards
Welfare Association v. State of H.P. and
Ors.; (2015) 6 SCC 247 although the Court
did not grant the reliefs as prayed,
directions
were
issued
to
the
State
Government for grant of duty allowance at
such rates, total of which 30 days (a month)
comes to minimum of the pay to which the
police personnel in the State Government is
entitled in terms of the directions issued by
the Supreme Court in the case of Grah
Rakshak,
Home
Guards
Welfare
Association (supra).

16. The said judgment of this Court
was challenged before the Supreme Court
in SLP (C) No.226 of 2017, which was
dismissed on 30.07.2019 and in pursuance
to the direction so issued, the allowance
payable
to
the
Home
Guards
were
increased.

17. In the present case, on the basis of
the scheme of the two Acts as recorded
above coupled with the stand taken by the
State Government in the counter affidavit,
there is no distinction in the nature of
duties performed by the members of both
the forces and thus, apparently, there is a
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India insofar as it denies the benefit of
minimum of pay which is payable to the
police personnel of the State Government.

18. In support of the contentions, the
second argument of learned counsel for the
petitioners that an amount of Rs.375/- is
less than the minimum wages prescribed
and thus, is in violation of Article 23 of the
Constitution of India, he places reliance on
a judgment of this Court in the case of
Madhyan
Bhojan
Rasoiya
Mazdoor
Sangh Husainganj Lucknow v. Union of
India & Ors. decided on 08.02.2023 in
Writ - A No.3479 of 2015 wherein this
Court had an occasion to consider the
amounts being paid to the cooks employed
by the State Government being less than
the minimum wages, and directions were
issued for payment to minimum wages
prescribed to the persons who were
working as cooks. This Court had also
noticed the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of People's Union for
Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of
India and Others; (1982) 3 SCC 235
wherein the Supreme Court had analysed
the scope of remuneration which was less
than the minimum wages and they were
held to be 'forced labour' within the scope
of forced labour defined under Article 23 of
9 All. Rajeev Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
749
the Constitution of India, and held has
under:

"14. Now the next question that
arises for consideration is whether there is
any breach of Article 23 when a person
provides labour or service to the State or
to any other person and is paid less than
the minimum wage for it. It is obvious that
ordinarily no one would willingly supply
labour or service to another for less than
the minimum wage, when he knows that
under the law he is entitled to get minimum
wage for the labour or service provided by
him. It may therefore be legitimately
presumed that when a person provides
labour or service to another against receipt
of remuneration which is less than the
minimum wage, he is acting under the force
of some compulsion which drives him to
work though he is paid less than what he is
entitled under law to receive. What Article
23 prohibits is "forced labour" that is
labour or service which a person is forced
to provide and "force" which would make
such labour or service "forced labour"
may arise in several ways. It may be
physical force which may compel a person
to provide labour or service to another or it
may be force exerted through a legal
provision
such
as
a
provision
for
imprisonment or fine in case the employee
fails to provide labour or service or it may
even be compulsion arising from hunger
and poverty, want and destitution. Any
factor which deprives a person of a choice
of alternatives and compels him to adopt
one particular course of action may
properly be regarded as "force" and if
labour or service is compelled as a result
of such "force", it would be "forced
labour". Where a person is suffering from
hunger or starvation, when he has no
resources at all to fight disease or to feed
his wife and children or even to hide their
nakedness, where utter grinding poverty
has broken his back and reduced him to a
state of helplessness and despair and where
no other employment is available to
alleviate the rigour of his poverty, he would
have no choice but to accept any work that
comes his way, even if the remuneration
offered to him is less than the minimum
wage. He would be in no position to
bargain with the employer; he would have
to accept what is offered to him. And in
doing so he would be acting not as a free
agent with a choice between alternatives
but under the compulsion of economic
circumstances and the labour or service
provided by him would be clearly "forced
labour". There is no reason why the word
"forced" should be read in a narrow and
restricted manner so as to be confined only
to physical or legal "force" particularly
when the national charter, its fundamental
document has promised to build a new
socialist republic where there will be socioeconomic justice for all and everyone shall
have the right to work, to education and to
adequate
means
of
livelihood.
The
Constitution-makers have given us one of
the most remarkable documents in history
for ushering in a new socio-economic order
and the Constitution which they have
forged for us has a social purpose and an
economic mission and therefore every word
or phrase in the Constitution must be
interpreted in a manner which would
advance the socio-economic objective of
the Constitution. It is not unoften that in a
capitalist society economic circumstances
exert much greater pressure on an
individual in driving him to a particular
course of action than physical compulsion
or force of legislative provision. The word
"force" must therefore be construed to
include not only physical or legal force but
also force arising from the compulsion of
economic circumstances which leaves no
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
choice of alternatives to a person in want
and compels him to provide labour or
service even though the remuneration
received for it is less than the minimum
wage. Of course, if a person provides
labour or service to another against receipt
of the minimum wage, it would not be
possible to say that the labour or service
provided by him is "forced labour"
because he gets what he is entitled under
law
to
receive.
No
inference
can
reasonably be drawn in such a case that he
is forced to provide labour or service for
the simple reason that he would be
providing labour or service against receipt
of what is lawfully payable to him just like
any other person who is not under the force
of any compulsion. We are therefore of the
view that where a person provides labour or
service to another for remuneration which is
less than the minimum wage, the labour or
service provided by him clearly falls within
the scope and ambit of the words "forced
labour" under Article 23. Such a person
would be entitled to come to the court for
enforcement of his fundamental right under
Article 23 by asking the court to direct
payment of the minimum wage to him so
that the labour or service provided by him
ceases to be "forced labour" and the breach
of Article 23 is remedied. It is therefore clear
that when the petitioners alleged that
minimum wage was not paid to the
workmen employed by the contractors, the
complaint was really in effect and substance
a complaint against violation of the
fundamental right of the workmen under
Article 23."

19. In view of the statutory provisions,
the stand taken by the State Government as
noted above and the fact that the payments
made as remuneration are less than the
minimum wages prescribed even for Class -
IV employees, the action of the State
Government is clearly arbitrary, the rights of
the petitioners under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India have been violated and
the
justification
given
by
the
State
Government for not paying the remuneration
equivalent to that being paid to the Home
Guard Jawans is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
In view thereof, the writ petitions deserve to
be allowed and are accordingly allowed.

20.

Directions
are
issued
for
recomputing the remuneration/allowances
payable to the Jawans of Uttar Pradesh
Prantiya Rakshak Dal at such rates, total of
which 30 days (a month) comes to
minimum of the pay to which a police
personnel in the State Government is
entitled as directed by the Supreme Court
in the case of Grah Rakshak, Home
Guards Welfare Association (supra).

The State Government shall also
pass orders for paying the emoluments/
remunerations to the petitioners at a rate
equivalent to which is being paid to the
Home Guards from time to time.

The State Government shall pass
requisite orders as directed above within a
period of three months from today.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 750
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ-A No. 6097 of 2023

U.O.I. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sri Kaushalya Nandan Sharan Verma &
Anr. ...Respondents