4 Majority of & Ors. v. G Mahana, Sadhana Sandhu, Kabir Hathi, R. K. Verma, Sushma Suri forthe & Ors.

1.4 Majority of the appellants has attained the maximum D age and are no more members of the Home Guards. The appointment letters enclosed by the remaining category of appellants, do not suggest that they are performing duty all over the year like any Government servant. There E is nothing on the record to suggest the master-servant relationship. They were appointed pursuant to Home Guard Rules, 1962 and it is made clear thattheir services are voluntary and will not get any pay but the duty allowance as may be fixed by the State Government from F time to time. Thus, the appellants are not entitled for regularization of service. Further, in absence of any comparison of duties, responsibilities, accountability and status, they may not be equated with the Police Constables or personnel to claim parity with the pay or G scale of pay as provided to the Police personnel. The High Court rightly refused to grant regularization of their services. [Para 20] [793-E-H] H 775 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 2 S.C.R.