SHAFIQ AHMED QADIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMING to have been appointed as a Daily Rated Worker way back in 1988 and having participated in elections of 1996, the petitioner pleads that as such he was entitled to regularisation in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. Grievance projected is that, respondents have not regularised his services and accordingly he seeks a direction for the same.

(2.) IN their reply the respondents while admitting petitioners engagement as casual/seasonal labourer since 1983 plead that since petitioner was not engaged as Daily Wager he would not be entitled to engagement in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, particularly because he did not seven years continuous service to his credit because his engagement was throughout punctuated with regular breaks. During course of their threshold submissions both counsel have reiterated the contents of their respective pleadings.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. It appears that previously also the petitioner had agitated his case through swp no.1121/05 disposed of on 8.6.2006 with a direction to respondents for his consideration in light of SRO 64 of 1994 read with Government order no.639 -GAD of 1996 dated 9.8.1996 if he was covered by same, consequent whereupon respondents passed a consideration order under No. DS/JK -per -Court -05/329/1967 -72 of 1996 dated 14.09.2006 wherein while observing that having been engaged as casual labourer the petitioner could not be considered under SRO 64 of 1994 or government order no.639 -GAD of 1996 and dismissed his claim. It is this order that is impugned in this writ petition with a prayer for its quashment and direction upon respondents for fresh consideration of his case, on the ground that the consideration accorded as above did not conform to facts of the case.