RAYAZ AHMED Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claimed regularization in terms of SRO-64 of 1994. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner filed writ petition bearing SWP No. 893/2003, claiming right of regularization in terms of SRO-64 on the ground that he had completed seven years of continuous service, as was prescribed under the said SRO. The petitioner's case was that he had come to be engaged as a Casual Labourer/ Daily Wager in the Block Office Mandi, District Poonch on 06.06.1995 and completed seven years of service.

(2.) The Writ Court by virtue of order dated 20.10.2010 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to take a decision for regularization of the services of the petitioner under the aforementioned SRO within a period of three months. The Writ Court also set aside the order of termination dated 30.04.2003 in regard to the petitioner. An LPA preferred by the State was also dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2013. Finally the Government appointed the petitioner by virtue of order dated 16.10.2014, by according relaxation in the upper age limit of the petitioner. The petitioner has come to this Court on the ground that the order of appointment ought to have related to a date prior in point of time, when he had completed seven years of continuous service as a Daily Wager/ Casual Labourer.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mrs. Seema Shekher, Sr. AAG, on the other hand, opposed the plea raised on the ground that even when the petitioner was not eligible he had been regularized after giving him the requisite upper age relaxation. It was stated that the State had yet accorded the benefit of regularization in due deference to the judgment passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation.