MOHD. FAROOQ Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were appointed as Executive Helper, Line man and Switch Board Attendant in the respondent -department between the period from 1989 to 1994. They are working in the department since then. Their services have been regularised from time to time. Services of petitioners 1 and 2 have been regularised w.e.f. 10.1.2004, petitioners No. 3, 8 and 14 w.e.f. 24.12.2003, petitioners No. 4, 6 & 10 w.e.f. 1.1.2004, Petitioners No. 5 & 7 w.e.f. 13.3.2004, petitioner No. 9 w.e.f. 6.11.2004, petitioner No. 11 w.e.f. 30.11.2004 , petitioner No. 12 w.e.f. 13.3.2001, petitioner No. 13 w.e.f. 15.4.2005 and petitioner No. 15 w.e.f. 17.1.2004, while as petitioners have completed their 7 years of service in July 1996, November, 1998, April 2000, June 1997, July 2000, October 1998, March 2001, October 1998 and June 1996 respectively. Their regularisation has been directed prospectively and no benefit has been given to them for the past service as they were eligible for regulrisation immediately on completion of 7 years of continued period of work as daily rated workers. Through the medium of the present petition they seek a direction to the respondents to consider their cases to give effect to their regularisation w.e.f. the date they completed 7 years of daily rated service.

(2.) RESPONDENTS have in their reply stated that as per SRO 64 of 1994 all the daily rated workers, who were engaged before 31.3.1994, were to be considered for regularisation on certain criteria i.e 7 years regular service as daily wagers, creation of posts, availibility of vacancies and seniority of the incumbent. It is further stated that completing 7 years ipso -facto does not confer any right on the incumbent to claim regularisation. Heard. I have considered the matter.

(3.) A vague reply has been submitted by the respondents who have not denied that the petitioners completed their 7 years of service on the dates mentioned by them in the petition. The only plea taken by the respondents is that the regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994 is not ipso facto but depends on various factors one of them being that the post should be available for such regularisation but the respondents have not given the details of the post or the date when these posts become available for the regularisation of the petitioners.