BABLI KOUL Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is no longer in service. It is her case that she has completed seven years of service it is also startad that she is migrant. Her claim is that she had completed seven years of service, therefore , she became entitled to regularisation not only in term of SRO 64 of 1994 but also in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in several judicial pronouncements.

(2.) The learned councel appearing for the State submits that thepetitioner had approaching this court earlier also. Writ petition No 687/91 was preferred by her. This writ petition came to be dismissed. The operative part of the order passed in the above writ petition is being reproduced below:

(3.) The learned cuunsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had come to the court earlier also but the issue involved in that petition was different. The petitioner was only claiming leave salary as permanent Daily Lobour. As requisite proof was not available with the petitioner therefore, the said relief was not granted. It is submitted that this court had observed that this is an issue regarding which the petitioner has to establish her right. It is, accordingly submitted that the filing of the earlier writ petition and its rejection would not stand in way of the petitioner in claiming present relief.