AB. GAFFAR BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TO set -forth the case of petitioners herein, the interim order dated 23.04.2007 may be reproduced herein below. Vide order of this Court dated 16th March, 2006 purporting to have been passed in SWP No. 507/2005 the earlier writ petition of petitioners was disposed of with a direction to respondents to process and consider the case on basis of recommendations submitted by officers to the high authorities of respondent -department and accord necessary benefits to them under SRO 64 of 1994 and other rules holding the field. This was followed by a report filed by the committee comprising of Manager Seed, Joint Director and Additional Director, Kashmir of respondent -department who vide their report appear to have been submitted in August 2006 while observing that the petitioners have spent most of their life in the department and had been working since 1988 -89, of course with usual breaks in the months of January and February presumptively for want of funds and as such deserves consideration for condonation of breaks in their work period on humanitarian grounds submitted the report to the concerned Director who appears to have forwarded the draft order to the administrative department for wetting the same for further necessary action with a copy thereof endorsed to Additional Director for necessary action and communicating the speaking order passed to each of petitioner(s). This was followed by the impugned communication purporting to have been addressed by said Additional Director to petitioners under his communication No. ADSDK/LC/206/7096 -98 dated 07.12.2006 where under he is stated to have communicated speaking order to petitioners informing them that they did not come within purview of SRO 64 of 1994 and as such were not entitled to grant of any benefit there under. It is this communication which is impugned in this writ petition on various grounds mentioned therein. The official side has however failed to file objections despite opportunities granted, consequent whereupon vide order dated 16.04.2007 right to file the same was closed.

(2.) THEREAFTER vide order dated 7th May 2007, however the prayer of respondents for taking memo objections on record was allowed under order passed in CMP No. 104/07 which now form part of the record. Perusal of the memo of objections so filed reveals that besides taking preliminary objections regarding non availability of cause to petitioners for instituting this petition respondents also maintain that petitioners do not have a case for regularization of their services under SRO 64 of 1994 as they have been working with respondent -department only as casual labourers and not daily wagers which in view of the opinion expressed by administrative department dis -entitles them for such consideration. During course of submissions the appearing counsel have reiterated contents of their respective pleadings.

(3.) IN view of the above this petition is disposed of in the said terms as was disposed of aforementioned writ petition, claim for regularization be considered. Petitioner make available copy of judgment passed in this case and also in the case referred to above S/VP NO: 437/1997 and also in LPA NO: 438/1998 decided on 16.8.1998 which has been relied upon in the earlier case. Petitioner would be considered for regularization with effect from the date he has completed seven years of services. After noticing the stand taken by respondents in that writ petition ld. Bench proceeded to assess the import of expression 'casual labourer' as under; The word 'Casual' has been defined in the Reader's Digest Universal Dictionary 1980 Edition at page 256 as something resulting form or occurring by chance, un - unpremeditated un -planned, informal, irregular, occasional part time. It also makes reference to the word' casual Labourer' According to this dictionary the Casual Labourer would be person who works at irregular interval. It would be apt to notice the stand taken by respondents the instant petition has striking similarity with that taken in the above mentioned petition (SWP No. 87/99) in paras 3 &4, 3 and 4 contents of paras 3 and 4 of the writ petition in so far as they pertain to the appointment of the petitioner as Daily wager/Daily Rated employees are incorrect, as such, are denied. It is submitted that the petitioner was engaged in the month of May, 1990 as Seasonal/Casual labourer and had been continuing as such, with usual breaks. No formal order of engagement was passed in favour of the petitioner by any authority at any time. Since the petitioner was engaged as a Casual Labourer as such does not fall under the purview of SRO 64 of 1994 and as such is not entitled to be regularized. The objection raised by respondents regarding disentitlement of petitioners to regularization for the reason of their having been engaged as 'casual labourers' and not as 'daily wagers' thus stand duly answered obviating any further discussions thereupon, particularly because nothing has been brought on record or suggested to show that above quoted judgment has ever been challenged by respondents herein or any body else.