Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) SINCE all the three writ petitions have been filed for the same prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing opposite parties to regularize the Petitioners on the post of Home Guards and further to direct the opposite parties to pay the Petitioners equal pay which is being paid to a regular police and P.A.C. employees, these writ petitions are decided by a common judgment. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that these writ petitions are not maintainable as the Home Guards under the Act and Rules do not hold a civil post. In this regard he has relied upon a judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 5816 of 1995; Raghvendra Singh v. District Commandant, Home Guards Mainpuri and another, appended as Annexure C.A. 2 to the connected writ petition No. 51186 of 2004, wherein it has been held that " it may be very hard and source of discomfort to note that persons working as Home Guard under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder though they have attending duties which has all features of a civil post/civil service, still they have been deprived of the status/ stature of civil post and denied protection enshrined in Article 311 of the Constitution of India to a civil service or civil post".
(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners claim to be working as Home Guard in the District Ballia for the last more than 10 years under the control of District Home Guard Commandant, Ballia; that with regard to their service condition, the statutory Rules known as U.P. Home Guards Rules, 1963, hereinafter referred to as Rules, have been framed, which is appended as Annexure -2 to the writ petition.;