SHEER AHMAD KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON hearing, as the matter was to be disposed of at this stage, it was taken up for the purpose on consensual submissions of the counsel for the parties,

(2.) ADMITTED ,

(3.) PETITIONER was engaged on casual basis as daily rated worker by respondent No. 2 in July 1988 (Annexure -B) with one days break, after every spell of 89 days. The petitioner worked as such daily wager with respondents 4 and 5 at Baramulla continuously till August 94 when he was picked up by the security Forces on 8.8.94 and detained. He was finally released on 11.8.95. The Security Forces after finding that he was not involved in any militancy activities recommended his case for re -appointment as daily rated (annexure -E) labourer to respondents 4 and 5 on whose establishment he was working as daily wager till the date of his arrest. Petitioners case for employment on regularisation has been recommended by the Executive Engineer and Supdt. Engineer PWD Baramulla respondent No. 3 and 4 to the Chief Engineer respondent No, 2 for re -appointment and reguiarisation (annexure F&G). Annexure D reveals that the concerned Minister has passed orders of engagement of the applicant on daily wage basis. In the meantime SRO 64 of 1994 was issued by the Govt providing for reguiarisation of daily wagers who completed 7 years service on terms and conditions of the SRO. Petitioner has sought mandamus for regularisation of his services and salary for the period of detention. Petitioner has strong case for regularisation as daily wager covered by SRO 64 of 1994 and other applicable rules and orders The period from 8.8.94 to 11.8.95 during which period he was detained by security forces merits to be included notionally in seven year period required for regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994, for the reason that during this period of about one year petitioner was taken in preventive detention for no fault of his. He was not under arrest or in custody in any regular or substantive case/offence. Even annexure C and E reveals that the Security Agencies have also certified that he was not involved in any militancy and therefore to exclude him from consideration only for the reasons that he was detained for reasons beyond his control, is quite unjust and improper. In some other like cases, co -ordinate benches of this court have directed the Govt in appropriate cases, to count the period towards eligibility criteria of 7 years as laid down under SRO 64 of 1994 and to regularise the services of respective daily wagers. This appears to be one of those cases, where it is just and appropriate to regularise the services of the petitioner as daily wager in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 read with other applicable statutory Rules and Orders. The petitioner cannot be given wages/remuneration for the period he was in detention, for simple reason, no work no wages. Order accordingly. Writ petition is disposed of as above, alongwith connected CMPs.