Jagdev Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others

LPA-1694-2025 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1694-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.09.2025 Jagdev Singh and others ...Appellants Vs.

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present:

Mr. Gulab Singh, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punjab.

*** ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL , J.(Oral) CM-4164-LPA-2025 Application is allowed as prayed for.

Main case The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners seeking their regularization had been dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were working on the post of Motivators/Master Motivators and were entitled to regularization as they had put in more than eight years of service. Their representation had been decided without affording any opportunity of hearing to them.

3.

Heard.

4.

The appellants are stated to be working as Motivators/Master Motivators. They are seeking regularization on the post of Block Resource Coordinators-cum-Community Facilitators. The stand of the respondents is that the VANITA 2025.09.03 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

LPA-1694-2025 (O&M) services of the appellants were engaged on a voluntary basis and were paid purely on output/outcome basis and as they had to work in the villages, identity cards were issued to them authorizing them to work in the villages. They were not paid any retainership or any fixed amount, but were only given incentives based upon their outcome/productivity. They were also free to do any other work, job or business as per their liking because the engagement was on voluntary basis. In the advertisement issued for engaging them as Motivators, it was stated that there shall be no employeremployee relationship between the department and them.

It is also stated in the written statement filed by the respondents that the appellants were at liberty to apply for the post of Block Resource Coordinator-cum-Community Facilitator and in case they apply for the post, they would be entitled to certain additional marks for their work as Motivators/Master Motivators. Some of the appellants are stated to have applied for the post of post of Block Resource Coordinator and were not selected despite award of the additional marks on account of their work as Motivators/Master Motivators.

5.

In light of the aforenoted facts and circumstances, we do not find any manifest illegality in the impugned judgment wherein the claim of regularization has been denied to the appellants as they were working purely on voluntary basis and they were free to do any other job or business as well. The Letter Patent Appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

6.

All pending miscellaneous application(s) shall also stand disposed of. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL ) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 02.09.2025 vanita Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes No Whether Reportable :

Yes No VANITA 2025.09.03 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment