Scheme-based motivators engaged without regular recruitment are not entitled to regularization.

The applicants were engaged as Motivators/Key Motivators under rural sanitation schemes and claimed regularization and payment of unpaid wages.

Earlier High Court orders directed that their status be maintained and their legitimately earned wages be paid.

The Government ultimately rejected regularization by Order No. 309-RD&PR of 2018, while making payment of wages conditional on verification of the applicants’ records and the period actually worked.

The Tribunal considered the applicants’ challenge to that order and their continuing claim for wages.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regularization as Motivators/Key Motivators

Whether the applicants’ legitimately earned wages had been paid, and, if not, what relief should follow

The Tribunal applied the principle in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806, that regularization is not a route to permanency for appointments made outside proper recruitment; the Tribunal identified relevant considerations including sanctioned posts, the nature of the appointment, and length and continuity of service.

It also relied on State of Jammu and Kashmir v. District Bar Association, Bandipora, AIR 2017 SC 11, for the rule that regularization is not a source of recruitment and cannot validate appointments made without the process required by Articles 14 and 16.

The Tribunal considered SRO 64 of 1994, the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, and SRO 520 of 2017, finding that the applicants’ engagements did not fall within the categories covered by those provisions.

Separately, it applied the requirement that legitimately earned wages be paid for work actually performed, consistent with the High Court’s prior directions and Government Order No. 309-RD&PR of 2018, which made payment subject to authentication of the records.

The applicants had not claimed that they were engaged through a regular recruitment process. The Tribunal found that they had been engaged on an honorarium or incentive basis under a scheme that had been discontinued, and that they did not qualify for regularization under the cited SROs or statute.

It therefore held that long service and departmental recommendations could not, in these circumstances, establish an entitlement to regularization.

On wages, however, the respondents’ pleadings did not establish that all unpaid amounts had been cleared; the respondents maintained that payment would be made for periods actually worked, subject to the committee’s recommendations.

The Tribunal accordingly distinguished the unsuccessful claim for regularization from the applicants’ entitlement to verified wages for work performed.

It directed the respondents to pay the applicants’ legitimately earned wages for the periods they had worked, at the earliest and preferably within four weeks of service of a certified copy of the order, and to submit a compliance report within two weeks thereafter.

The T.A. was disposed of without an order as to costs.