The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that individuals engaged as Motivators/Master Motivators on a purely voluntary, incentive-based basis, with no employer-employee relationship, are not entitled to regularization of their services. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s dismissal, confirming the continued validity of precedent regarding regularization in such factual circumstances. This judgment is binding authority within the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction on the issue of claims to regularization by voluntary/incentive-based workers.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/1694/2025 of JAGDEV SINGH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010915592025 |
| Date of Registration | 31-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Division Bench (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL & DEEPAK MANCHANDA, JJ.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Single Bench judgment dismissing writ for regularization |
| Type of Law | Service Law – Regularization |
| Questions of Law | Whether persons engaged as Motivators/Master Motivators on voluntary, output-based terms are entitled to regularization? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that where services are engaged on a voluntary, incentive-based basis with no employer-employee relationship, and the individuals are free to pursue other employment, there is no basis for regularization under service law. The advertisement and contemporaneous documentation clearly denied any employment relationship. The mere issuance of identity cards for access purposes and incentivizing on outcome/productivity basis do not change this legal status. Prior grant of additional marks for their service did not confer entitlement to substantive appointment or regularization. The voluntary nature of work was critical to denying regularization. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Appellants worked as Motivators/Master Motivators, sought regularization as Block Resource Coordinators-cum-Community Facilitators; they were paid incentives based on outcome, had no fixed remuneration, could work elsewhere, and formal documents denied any employment relationship. Respondents allowed them to compete in open selection with additional marks for past work, but no promise of regularization. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana High Court jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals dealing with similar voluntary/incentive-based service claims |
| Follows | Single Bench decision denying regularization to voluntary workers |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that workers engaged voluntarily on an outcome-based (incentive) model, with express denial of employer-employee relationship in advertisement and official documents, are not eligible for regularization.
- The existence of identity cards, incentive payments, or additional interview marks does not alter the legal status to that of regular employees.
- Opportunity to apply and compete for regular posts is not tantamount to a promise of regularization or legitimate expectation.
- The judgment provides binding authority on the treatment of honorary/voluntary service claims in state schemes or engaging departments.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench reviewed the entire engagement framework of Motivators/Master Motivators as stated in the pleadings and record.
- It noted that the appellants were engaged on voluntary terms, with the department clearly stating there would be no employer-employee relationship, and that remuneration would be incentive-based only.
- Respondents consistently described the arrangement as voluntary in the advertisements and engagement documents; no promise of fixed wage, tenure, or regularization was made.
- The only recognition for their services was the award of additional marks in future competitive selection, which some petitioners availed but remained unselected.
- The Court found no manifest illegality in the Single Judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the critical factor: the voluntary and non-regular nature of the engagement.
- The Court did not find any statutory or precedential basis to support conversion of voluntary service into regular government employment.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The appellants worked for over eight years as Motivators/Master Motivators.
- Claimed entitlement to regularization based on length of service.
- Argued their representation for regularization was decided without affording a hearing.
Respondent:
- Engagement was purely voluntary, based on incentives; no salary, retainership, or employer-employee relationship existed.
- Appellants were free to do other work or business.
- Advertisements and official documents expressly denied any employment relationship.
- Appellants could only apply for regular posts, gaining additional merit for prior work as Motivators/Master Motivators.
Factual Background
The appellants served as Motivators/Master Motivators, working in villages under a government scheme. Their engagement was explicitly voluntary, incentive-driven, and did not entail any fixed remuneration or employment contract; identity cards were issued for operational purposes only. In advertisements, the absence of an employer-employee relationship was unequivocally stated. When the government advertised regular posts for Block Resource Coordinators-cum-Community Facilitators, the appellants were permitted to apply, with their prior Motivator experience granting them additional merit marks; however, some were not selected. Their plea for regularization was denied by a Single Judge, leading to the present appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment does not cite or interpret any specific statutory provision; the analysis turns on the contractual and administrative record, particularly the terms stipulated in the public advertisement and engagement documents.
- The voluntary, outcome-based model was determinative in assessing the claim under service law principles relating to regularization.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Both judges, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL and DEEPAK MANCHANDA, concurred; there is no dissent.
Procedural Innovations
The Court relied on existing procedure and did not lay down any new procedural rules or innovations in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Division Bench affirms, follows, and gives binding effect to established precedent, specifically the Single Judge’s approach, regarding non-regularization of voluntary/incentive-based workers.
Citations
- No specific SCC/AIR/neutral citation mentioned in the judgment text.
- Judgment pronounced on 02.09.2025, CNR PHHC010915592025, LPA-1694-2025.