SRO 64 of 1994 applies only to daily rated workers and work charged employees, not to casual or seasonal workers. Rule 8 of SRO 64 does not confer an indefeasible right on a daily rated worker to continue in engagement for 7 years to enable them to get a right to be considered for regularisation.

Per Dr. B.P. Saraf, Chief Justice.

1. This is an appeal under clause 12 of the Letter Patent against the order of learned Single Judge dated: 24-08-1998 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellants-casual labourers seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue in service in terms of seven years to enable them to get their services regularised in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage itself as he was satisfied that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought for. The learned Single Judge, however, made it clear that the order of rejection of the writ petition would not deprive the petitioners of their continuation on need basis. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition in limine, the appellants have filed this Letter Patent Appeal.

2. The material facts of the case are as follows. Appellant N. 1, Ghulam Ahmad Bhat, was engaged as casual labourer on the muster role by the District Sheep Husbandry Officer, Budgam (respondent No. 3) in the month of February, 1994. He continued to work as casual labourer on muster role till 31st March, 1995. Thereafter, he was engaged as casual labourer for watch and ward of departmental property (building) with effect from 1st April, 1995 by the Director, Sheep Husbandry Department, Kashmir (respondent No. 2). The District Sheep Husbandry Officer, Budgam (respondent No. 3) also engaged appellant No. 2, Muhammad Sultan, as casual labourer on muster roll with effect from 15th July, 1996 for agricultural work. He continued to work as such casual labourer. On 1st April, 1998, the Director, Sheep Husbandry Department, Kashmir (respondent No. 2), by his order dated 1st April, 1998, accorded sanction to engagement of three casual labourers for watch and wardy office work with effect from 1st January, 1997 till May, 1998 and one casual labourer for lighting o1 hard coke stoves with effect from 15th November, 1997 to 15th March, 1998. This sanction was however, subject to the following conditions:

i) All rules and regulations be observed before making payment on muster roll,

ii) No order is issued on name,

iii) The labourers have no claim for permanent absorption.

iv) The labourers are disbanded after expiry of the sanction.

In terms of the above order, respondent No. 3 issued order dated 3rd August, 1998 directing the Belt Officers, ISD Ompura, Bandipore and Zoohama to disband the casual labourers engaged in their respective belts with immediate effect. The appellants challenged the above order that had the effect of bringing their service as casual labourers to an end by filing writ petition before this Court. In the writ petition, the petitioner (appellants herein) not only sought quashing of the above order, but a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue to work as casual labourers for a period of 7 years to enable them to get the benefit Of regularisation under the SRO 64 of 1994. As stated earlier, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as in his opinion the petitioners were not entitled to any such direction under SRO 64 of 1994. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petition by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners have filed this appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. Qayoom, learned counsel for the appellants, who submits that under SRO 64 of 1994, even persons engaged as casual labourers are to be allowed to work in that capacity for a period of seven years to enable them to avail the benefit of regularisation of their services under the said SRO. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants, in other words, is that once a person is appointed as a casual labourer, SRO 64 of 1994 becomes applicable to him and in terms thereof has to be allowed to continue as a casual labourer for a period of seven years to enable him to get the benefit of regularisation of his services under the SRO. In support of his contention, the learned co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document