NARINDER KHAJURIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, in all these petitions, claim to be working as Daily Wagers in the department of PHE for the last several years. Their grievance, as projected in all these petitions, is that despite the fact that they have been working as Daily Wagers in the respondent department for the last more than two decades continuously, their cases have not been considered by the respondents for regularization. For facility of convenience, the writ petitioners, in these petitions, may be divided into three categories depending upon their dates of engagement. Some of the petitioners claim that they were engaged as Daily Wagers prior to 31/3/1994 and, therefore, became entitled to regularization on completion of continuous service of 07 years in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, they constitutes first category. The second category of the petitioners consists of those who were engaged as Daily Wagers after 31/3/1994, but were in position as on the date of issuance of Government Order No. 1285 of 2001 dtd. 6/11/2001. On their behalf, it is claimed that they too, on the completion of 07 years continuous requisite service as Daily Wagers, became entitled to regularization in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in LPASW No. 33/2010, titled State of J&K and ors. Vs. Mustaq Ahmad Sohail and ors. decided on 20/12/2012. The petitioners that fall in the third category are those who came to be engaged as Daily Wagers after 6/11/2001 and are in continuous service of the respondents for the last more than 10 years. It is claimed that they too have become entitled to the benefit of regular engagement in terms of SRO 520 of 2017.

(2.) The respondents have filed their objections and have not very specifically disputed the engagement of the petitioners made by the respondents from time to time. On behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that since most of the petitioners came to be appointed after the ban imposed vide SRO 64 of 1994, as such, they are not entitled to regularization under any rule. It is, however, conceded that the cases of the petitioners, if fall within the ambit of SRO 520 of 2017, shall be considered by the appropriate authority and appropriate orders in this behalf shall be passed.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed by them in the manner provided hereinafter.