MOHD AYOUB HANJI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the medium of this writ petition, petitioner has questioned the order No.70 of 2007 dated 07.08.2007 passed by respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder, the claim of the petitioner for regularization in terms of SRO 64 came to be rejected on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

(2.) IT is averred in the writ petition that petitioner is working as a Dailywager in the department - -Project Construction Corporation (PCC) right from 1st January, 1992 and is holding the position. He had made request to the respondents for accord of consideration for regularization in terms of mandate of SRO 64 but respondents failed to do so constrained the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this court by the medium of SWP No.342/2006 - -came to be allowed vide judgment/ order dated 11th of September, 2006 with the command to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of SRO 64 and take decision within three months.

(3.) IT appears that respondents failed to consider the case within time frame constrained the petitioner to file a contempt petition No.394/2006. In para -2 of the statement of facts, respondents have averred that case of the petitioner was considered and made communication/ request to the concerned authority for creation of post enabling the department -respondent No.3 to regularize the service of the petitioner. It is apt to reproduce para -2 of the said statement of facts herein: - "2) That the present proceedings have been raised by the petitioner out of directions contained in the judgment dated 1.09.2006 whereby respondents are under direction to consider petitioners entitlement to regularization on the strength of SRO 64 and a decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order by respondent No.1. In this behalf, the answering respondent has considered the matter and has taken up the matter with the respondent No.1 (Secretary to Govt. PWD (R&B) Department, J&K Govt.) vide office letter No.2736 Dt: 01 -02 -2007, copy of same is enclosed as Annexure -"A" for kind perusal of this Honble Court. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 has forwarded the case to the Finance Department for creation of post against which petitioner is required to be regularized. Neither respondent No.1 nor respondent No.2 have got power or authority to regularize the services of any daily rated worker in terms of SRO 64 of 1994."