The Allahabad High Court has held that village policemen, also known as Gram Prahari or Chowkidars, are not entitled to the same pay as police personnel in regular establishments or Home Guards.

The court noted that their duties, rooted in colonial-era laws, have become largely outdated due to technological advancement and cannot be equated with modern policing roles.

The case involved 1,518 petitioners appointed under the North-Western Provinces Village and Road Police Act, 1873, repealed in 2017. Despite the repeal, they continued to function under provisions of the Oudh Laws Act, 1876, and relevant chapters of the U.P. Police Regulations. Petitioners argued that their long-standing service and police-related duties entitled them to the same minimum pay as regular police personnel, invoking Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 23 (prohibition of begar) of the Constitution.

They claimed they were receiving a meager honorarium of ₹2,500 per month, which was not only insufficient but also exploitative. They cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh to claim parity with Home Guards.

The State contended that Village Policemen were only required to work two days a month and were free to pursue other occupations. It argued that their role was honorary and not akin to full-time employment in the police force.

Justice J.J. Munir, rejecting the petitioners’ claim, held:

"The Village Policemen were installed as ‘the third eye’ of the Police force in earlier times. While they may still assist occasionally, they are not part of a regular force, nor enrolled like the Home Guards."

Key observations of the Court:

• Most duties assigned to Village Policemen under the Police Regulations have become rudimentary and irrelevant in the modern era.

• Their role lacks the continuous, full-time obligation expected of enrolled police personnel or Home Guards.

• Unlike police officers, Village Policemen are not barred from engaging in alternate occupations, indicating a more flexible and limited role.

• The ₹2,500/month honorarium, though low, was not considered arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of Article 14, given the nature and extent of their duties.

• The court declined to apply the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Home Guards case, distinguishing between the structured service and obligations of Home Guards and the casual engagement of Village Policemen.

While denying relief to the petitioners, the Court urged the State Government to consider framing a new legislation to redefine and modernize the role of village policemen, ensuring appropriate duties and remuneration aligned with current needs.

“It is not the province of the Court to revise salaries or dictate working conditions—such matters fall within the executive’s policy domain,” the Court clarified.

The writ petition was dismissed without granting any relief, but the Court advised the State to consider making the role of Village Policemen "effective and vibrant in contemporary times."

Case Title: Lavkush Tiwari & 1486 Others v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Writ - A No. 18956 of 2022