High Court dismisses Nagaland Village Guards’ plea for pay parity with police

DIMAPUR — The Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench has dismissed a petition filed by 54 Junior Commissioned Officers of the Nagaland Village Guard Organisation seeking pay parity with equivalent ranks in the state police, holding that the two services are fundamentally different and do not warrant equal treatment under service rules.

In the judgment delivered on Friday, Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer ruled that the petitioners had not demonstrated any legal or constitutional basis for claiming parity with police ranks such as Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sub-Inspector, or Inspector.

The petitioners had claimed that the posts of Jamadar, Subedar, and Subedar Major in the Village Guard Organisation were equivalent to Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sub-Inspector, and Inspector respectively in the police department.

They argued that their duties and responsibilities, particularly in conflict-prone and remote areas, were comparable to those of regular police personnel, and therefore they were entitled to the same pay scale.

Also read: Villages in Wokha district still struggling without motorable roads

However, the Court observed that although the 1993 Nagaland Service (Revision of Pay) Rules mentioned corresponding pay scales for certain village guard ranks, the petitioners had “misinterpreted the remark in column 51” of the rules.

The court clarified that the post of Subedar is not mentioned at all in the relevant rule.

“The remark, ‘will be entitled to the same scale as recommended for corresponding ranks in the police department’ would mean that Subedar major and Jamadar in the village guard is corresponding with the post of Sub Inspector of police and Constable under the police department respectively,” it added.

The court further pointed out that the village guards and police personnel differ significantly in terms of recruitment, qualifications, duties, and deployment. While police personnel are selected through formal recruitment processes with prescribed educational standards, village guards are locally nominated, and most ranks below Jamadar serve on a voluntary basis.

The petitioners had also invoked the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, arguing that their duties were comparable to those of police personnel, particularly in remote and insurgency-affected areas. However, the Court found no material evidence to establish functional equivalence between the two services.

It noted that village guards are deployed in only three or four districts, and are not involved in criminal investigations, unlike the police force, which is deployed throughout the state.

“This court does not have the expertise to examine nor is it shown from the materials on record for the court to arrive at a conclusive finding that the nature and scope of work of the petitioners is equivalent to that of the police personnel of the police department,” the order stated.

The court further held that matters related to pay fixation and parity fall squarely within the executive’s domain, and that judicial intervention is justified only when such decisions are “clearly violative of some statute or is shockingly arbitrary.”

Finding no violation of Article 14 or any statutory rules, the court concluded that there was no merit in the case and dismissed the petition.